ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THERESEARCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OFHIGHER EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES

Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Richardson, Denise Rose

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 06/06/2018 00:43:36

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/282078

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms

International 300 N. ZEEB RD„ ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106

8207905

Richardson, Denise Rose

ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE RESEARCH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES

The University of Arizona PH.D. 1981

University Microfilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print

3. Photographs with dark background

4. Illustrations are poor copy

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page

7; Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages •/

8. Print exceeds margin requirements

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print

11. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12; Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages

15. Other ;

University Microfilms

International

ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING THE RESEARCH

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER

EDUCATION AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES

by

Denise Rose Richardson

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 8 1

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE

As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read

the dissertation prepared by Denise Rose Richardson '

entitled ANALYSIS OF THE CONCERNS SURROUNDING,THE RESEARCH

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

AND LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES

and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement

for the Degree of Ph.D. .

Date

9.- V. -wa-gy

UL/M

Date

jry ( Date

Date

Date

Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copy of the dissertation to the Graduate College.

I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.

$aJVuMxXfcw 5~-/3 -X! Dissertation Director Date

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to bor­rowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated with love and apreciation to My Past, My Present, My Future Rosa E. Hadley, my grandmother, L. Maye Richardson, my mother, Sarita, my l i tt le sister Sonya and Melissa, my neices

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge and express her

appreciation to the following people for their respective guidance,

support and encouragement during the undertaking of this study.

Dr. Darrell L. Sabers, a truly great editor, who provided the

kind of skill, objectivity, and unselfishness that is the mark of all

exceptional dissertation directors—I thank you for setting the stan­

dards, keeping me on task, and all the positive strokes.

Dr. Henry E. Butler, Jr., my mentor, whose genuine caring and

support never waivered during the 3 1/2 years of my doctoral program.

The contributions you have made to the educational field will long be

remembered by those who had the good fortune to have had you touch

their lives—I thank you for being you.

Dr. Roy F. Blake, whose consistency logical rigor, and frank­

ness helped me set the framework for the data collection and report­

ing—I thank you for sharing your expertise unselfishly.

The subject of this study was chosen because of the efforts of

Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Dr. Walter Hathaway, Jr., and the members of

the AERA: Division H Task Force on "Fostering Fruitful Relationships

between IHEs and LEAS." A very special thanks to Barbara Prentice for

her moral support and actions taken to advance my career.

v

vi

To the researchers who piloted the instruments used in this

study; and the respondents who took time out of their busy schedules to

complete the questionnaire—I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness.

Stan Malinowitz, a budding statistician—I thank you for your

help in designing and running the computer analysis.

Carmen Barrio and Shelby Erwin who typed all the drafts of the

two questionnaires—thank you for your professionalism and patience.

Fran Johnson and Helen Hurley, the backbones of the EDFA De­

partment—I thank you for the emergency typing and information re­

trieval, your smiles and words of encouragement.

Barbara Romero, my secretary and friend—I thank you for taking

the time during a hectic year to type the first drafts for several

chapters. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

The dynamic trio, Ken Hayden, Louise Hayden, and Michaele Ann

Melton, who took time out of their busy lives to proofread, edit, and

most importantly—care—I thank you for sharing your lives with me.

I express my appreciation to my many friends who remained

loyal and supportive even when I could not return their support.

My best buddy, Beryl Varner, who through many long distance

calls, kept my spirits liftdd and my nose to the grindstone—I thank

you for being the unselfish person you are.

Last, but most importantly, I want to thank those whose inti­

mate love for me made me want to succeed—my Mom, my Aunt Pauline

Jones, the girls, and Joseph—I love you all and I know you share in

the realization of my dreams.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii

ABSTRACT ' . . . xiv

CHAPTER

1. PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM 1

Introduction 1 Rationale 3 Statement of the Problem 7 Statement of the Purpose 7 Hypotheses 7 Assumptions 8 Limitations 9 Definitions of Terms 9 Organization of the Study 11

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13

Traditional Cooperative Relationships Between the IHE and the LEA 13 Preservice 14 Student Teaching 15 Administrative Internship 16 Continuing Education 17 Part-time or Guest Lectures 17 Inservice Education 17 Consultant Services . 18

Organizations: Focus and Purpose 19 Theoretical Hindrances to Collaboration 23

Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC) 26 Getzels-Guba Model 29 Structural-Functional Analysis 34

Institutional Hindrances of Collaborative Research in the XHE 36 Introduction 36 Findings from UNESCO Conference ..... 37

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS—-Continued

viii

Page

Findings from the Sieber Study 43 Institutional Hindrances to Collaborative Research in the LEA 51

Sociological Hindrances to Inter-Institutional Collaboration 55 Differences with Regard to Policy-Making 56 Differences with Regard to the Role of the Written Word 57

Differences with Regard to Daily Activities ... 57 Differences in Attitudes toward Cooperation . . : 58 Differences with Regard to Expenditure of Funds . 59 Differences Relating to Research and Development . 59 Differences with Regard to Personnel Matters ... 59 Differences with Regard to Personal Commitment

to the Organization 61 Differences with Regard to Relative Statuses ... 61 Differences in Educational, Political, and Social Views 62

Perceptual Hindrances to Collaborative Research Efforts 63 Introduction 63 Perceptions: The Institution of Higher Education. 63 Perceptions: The Local Education Agency 65

Recommendations for Increasing the Probability of Success in Collaborative Research Efforts 67

Summary 80

3. METHOD 84

Introduction 84 Sample 85 Description of the Instruments 87 Procedures for Collecting the Data 88 Method of Analysis 90

Demographic Data (Census and organization) .... 90 Perceptions of the "Reality" and "Expectation of the Research Relationship" 91

Selecting the Chi Square Categories. ....... 95 Rationale for the Selection of ANOVA 95 Decision to Use Parametric Statistics 96 Rationale for Selecting the Tukey HSD Procedure. . 97 Rationale for Selection of the Chi Square 97

Summary 98

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

4. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 99

Response Rate 99 Census Data 102 Organizational Data . 105 Null Hypothesis 1 Ill

Presentation of the Data . . Ill Analysis of the Data 115

Null Hypothesis 2 115 Presentation of the Data 115 Analysis of the Data 116

Null Hypothesis 3 120 Presentation of the Data 120 Analysis of the Data 126

Null Hypothesis 4 127 Presentation of the Data 128 Analysis of the Data 140

Summary 140

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 142

Summary 142 Conclusions 143 Discussion 147 Recommendations 149

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR DRE, IHE, AND LEA 151

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION TEACHERS 158

APPENDIX C: CONCEPTUAL CHECKLIST FOR PERSONS PLANNING TO DEVELOP INTERINSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIONS .... 161

LIST OF REFERENCES 163

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Motivators and Costs Associated with Inter-organizational Cooperation 28

2. Emphasis on Research by Various Groups, and the Influence Which They Have on the Goals of the School (according to deans) 47

3. Number of Questionnaires Sent and Percentage of Returns by Group Membership 100

4. Number of DCE and DRE Respondents Giving Each Reason for Non-return of Questionnaire 101

5. Number of Respondents in Each Group by Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Level 103

6. Number of Respondents in Each Student Enrollment Category 104

7. Number of LEA and DRE Responses to Questions Regarding a Central Research and Evaluation Unit .... 106

8. Number of IHE and DCE Responses to Questions Regarding Coordinating Research Offices 107

9. Number of DCE Responses to the Question—"Does College of Education Have a Research Policy?" 108

10. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Member­ship Responding to the Question—"From whom do you request assistance in a cooperative research project?" 109

11. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Member­ship Responding to the Question—"Who requests assistance from you in a cooperative research project?" 110

x

xi

LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table Page

12. P Values of the Dependent Variables in Which There Were Not Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of Research Relationship 112

13. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences among •the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship 113

1.4. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Not Significant Differences in the Perceptions of the "Expectation" of Research Relationships 117

15. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences in Percep­tions among the Respondents on the Expectation of the Research Relationship 119

16. Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 .... 121

17. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4a 129

18. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4b 130

19. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4c 131

20. Free Responses of DRE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 132

21. Free Responses of LEA Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 133

22. Free Responses of IHE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 134

xii

LIST OF TABLES—Continued

Table Page

23. Free Responses of DCE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?" 135

24. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What are some benefits of IHE/ LEA research relationships?" 136

25. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What can be done to foster better collaborative research relationships between the IHE and LEA?" 138

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Levels of Organization ..... 21

2. Lewin's Theoretical Construct of Relations between Individuals 25

3. Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation 30

4. Getzel-Guba Model of a Social Process . 32

5. The Collaborative Decision-Making Process 69

6. Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System 72

7. Key Elements in the IOD Action and Research Domain 75

8. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 1 92

9. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 2 93

10. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 3 94

xiii

ABSTRACT

The problem of this study was: What practical and theoretical

problems attend the research relationship between Institutions of

Higher Education (IHE) and Local Education Agencies (LEA)? The major

purpose of the study was to ascertain the extent and nature of the

problems and issues in the LEA/IHE research relationship from the per­

spective of respondents from both groups.

Four populations were sampled through researcher designed ques­

tionnaires—Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE), college faculty

(IHE), Directors of Research and Evaluation (DRE), and research staff

(LEA) from public schools.

Four hypotheses were tested. Null hypotheses 1 and 2 were

tested by a one-way ANOVA. Null hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way

ANOVA. Chi-square was the statistic used to test null hypothesis 4.

Based on the retention or rejection of the four null hypotheses

in this study the following general conclusions were made:

1. This study supports the examined literature that perceptual

differences do indeed exist between members of the IHE and LEA

in relation to the research relationship between these two

institutions.

2. The significant differences in perceptions of the research

relationship relate to planning, decision making powers, role

xiv

XV

definition, finances, value of research, communication and

institutional arrangements for conducting research.

3. All respondents feel there is some benefit from research col-

laboratives between the IHE and the LEA.

Several recommendations were made. Some of these were as fol­

lows. This study was focused primarily on the perceptual hindrances to

collaborative research in the IHE and LEA. There exists a need for

more empirical studies which focus on various aspects of the research

relationship between the IHE and LEA. There should be a continuing

search for other factors which hinder or facilitate successful colla-

boratives. A compiled body of research relating to this topic should

be encouraged so that there will exist several data banks which can

systematically be searched. This data-based feedback would be extreme­

ly useful to those entering into a collaborative relationship. Studies

should be conducted which examine the relationship between the ideal

and actual purposes of research in an effort to find ways to bring those

purposes closer together.

CHAPTER 1

PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM

If no distinction of superiority and inferiority prevail among officers, they will devote themselves to their tasks rather than to rivalries with one another. It is because we single out something and treat it as distinct from other things that we get the idea of its opposite. In conflicts between opposites, the more one attacks his seeming opponent (upon which he really depends for his completion) the more he defeats himself. (Tao Teh King Circa 500 B.C.)

Introduction

Evidence exists which suggests that the American public feels

that the public school system is failing (Bloom 1977, Rand Corporation

1972, Gallup 1979, 1980). The ensuing result has been a decline in pub­

lic confidence as evidenced by tax revolts, court cases, flight to pri­

vate schools, and parent militancy. The key to gaining public confidence

is to help the public understand schools and how they are operated

(McCloskey 1967). But educational administrators have not and conse­

quently have let themselves be placed in a situation where the public

now demands of them certain definite educational behavior. Answers to

the myriad and multifaceted problems that presently beset the educa­

tional system are being sought—even demanded by the public (Carter

1979). Educational administrators have been made the responsible party.

This situation has been described by several scholars as the "account­

ability era" (Lessinger 1970, Stufflebeam 1971).

1

2

These renewed demands present challenging implications for

educational administrators. In the past educators have not relied on

research to establish a basis of process accountability (Kimbrough

1976). The challenge lies in that this era or movement requires that

administrators have a rational, defensible, and retrievable foundation

for their decisionmaking. As a result, the concern and the need for

research and evaluation has increased considerably.

Local education agencies, institutions of higher education, and

other educational organizations have invested considerable resources in

institutional and evaluation research. This increase in effort was in

direct response to the loss of credibility and public interest in ac­

countability (Kimbrough 1976).

Prior to this movement, educational research and development was

given a new scope and direction with the:

1. 1963, Vocational Education Act,

2. 1964, Amendments to the Cooperative Research Act, and

3. 1965, ESEA Title IV.

With this change in scope and direction came a newfound hope for research

and development to become a significant independent variable toward im­

proving educational practice (Taylor 1972) and decisionmaking (Cohen

1970). However, research efforts by Institutions of Higher Education

(IHE) and the resulting data have not been uniformly welcomed by educa­

tional administrators in the Local Education Agency (LEA) (Carter 1979).

Some educators believe that accountability is one of the many

fads in education that come and go. Kimbrough (1976) advocates that

the accountability movement

3

is symptomatic of deeply ingrained problems in the administration of public schools. It is symptomatic of the lack of professional development and low level of research-based knowledge about how children learn. . . educators must become much more professionally re­spectable than they have been in dealing with learning problems. Basic research and development programs are needed (page 190).

Other educators purport that the research coming out of the Institutions

of Higher Education does not respond to their needs (Rankin 1980).

That research does not assist them in their daily decisions and policy

development is a perennial complaint from educational practitioners.

Yet educational research is accelerating as more scholars from more

disciplines turn their attention to phenomena, processes,and problems

related to education (Averch 1974).

Evidence from surveys, reviews of literature, and personal

experience indicate that there is a definite need for improvement in

both the willingness and ability of the Institutions of Higher Educa­

tion and the Local Education Agency to work cooperatively in research

ventures (Hathaway 1979).

This study was focused on isolating some of the factors, at both

the institutional and personal level, which hinder or facilitate

cooperative research relationships between Institutions of Higher

Educations and Local Educational Agencies.

Rationale

The subject of the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and

Local Education Agency (LEA) relationships has been a long-term

concern. Until the last 20 years the concern has focused more on the

4

lag between research and practice than on the nature of the relation­

ship. The rationale for this study stemmed from the possibility that

an increased understanding of the nature of the IHE/LEA research rela­

tionship could facilitate collaboration between these two major educa­

tional institutions.

Much has been written in professional literature about the

various types of cooperative relationships between the IHE and the LEA.

The most frequently mentioned is the field practice, where the LEA ••

provides sites in which IHE students put theory into practice. However,

a search of the Educational Research Information Clearing House (ERIC)

indicies revealed that there is limited research on collaborative re­

search practices between the IHE and LEA. In part to address this need,

and generally to study the position of educational research, an inter­

national conference convened at the UNESCO Institute in Hamburg,

Germany. The main purpose of this meeting was to:

. . . submit to critical scrutiny the present arrangements for organizing and carrying out educational research with a view to discovering ways in which these arrange­ments might be so modified as to lead to a more fruitful partnership between educational research and educational practice (Yates 1971, 15).

The conference had its origin in a widely shared concern that education­

al research appeared to be failing the needs of its patrons. Those who

sponsored and those who participated in the conference were committed

to the proposition that the justification of educational research must

rest on the contribution that it can make to the improvement of educa­

tional practice. That useful data for decisionmaking and the

5

improvement of educational practice are yielded by collaborative

research is acknowledged by both the LEA practitioner (Holley 1977,

Barber 1979, Rankin 1980) and the IHE researcher (Cohen 1970, Carter

1979, Carlson 1980).

Why. then is collaborative research not utilized with more

frequency? Interwoven in this issue of collaborative research are

several key variables which have impeded its success. These variables

include perception, structure, and finance (Kean 1979). Listed below

are a few of these central issues.

1. More often than not the lament heard from the LEA practitioner

is the inability of the ivory-tower academicians to communicate

with and offer solutions to real-life problems (Prentice 1980).

Concomitantly, the academicians question the impact of their

research and evaluation efforts on school problems (Kerlinger

1977, Callahan 1980).

2. A number of problems exist in the development of cooperative

research between the IHEs and the LEAs, but perhaps the

pivotal problem is that each party has a different stake in

research and these different stakes are often in competition.

The questions of which type of research, basic or applied, will

most benefit the LEA has yet to be answered.

3. It appears that larger urban school districts are no longer

hospitable to outside researchers wishing to use the schools,

staff, students, and resources in research that is frequently

useless to the schools (Holley 1977). In short, IHEs are no

longer automatically welcomed into school districts for the

purpose of conducting research.

4. With the very real presence of the shrinking research dollar,

collaborative research efforts have to progress from being an

innovation to a necessity for survival. The historical inde­

pendent approach of IHE research on schools and LEA research

in schools can ill-afford to continue if either is to be ef­

fective (Kean 1979). Collaboration increases both the possible

securement of research dollars and the efficiency of the re­

search project.

5. The controversy between the IHE and the LEA has centered on

the question, "Who uses whom in the research process?" Some­

where in the heat of this emotional tornado lies the calm of

truth (Haase 1979). This study was an attempt to systematical­

ly forage some of these truths.

Most of the writings on the topic of the nature of the IHE/LEA

research relationships have been discursive and theoretical rather

than empirically based. The purpose of this study was not to negate

the importance of previous work in this area. However, there exists

a need for additional empirically-based studies which isolate some of

the problems as well as describe how the LEA and IHE can have mutually

beneficial impact on each other. This study helped meet that need.

Statement of the Problem

What theoretical and practical problems attend the IHE/LEA

research relationship?

Statement of the Purpose

This study was a descriptive study in that the major purposes

were to:

1. Describe the organizational features of the IHE which hinder

collaborative research with LEA.

2. Describe the organizational features of the LEA which hinder

collaborative research with IHE.

3. Obtain information which could be used to facilitate collabora­

tive research.

4. Ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in

LEA/IHE research relationships from the perspective of respon­

dents from both institutions.

Hypotheses

The relationship among the respective perceptions of the

Directors of Evaluation and Research (DRE), Deans of Colleges of

Education (DGE), IHE faculty and LEA research staff respondents

was tested by the following null hypotheses:

1. There are no differences among the perceptions of IHE, DRE,

and LEA respondents on the "reality" of the research relation­

ships between the IHE and the LEA.

2. There are no differences among the perceptions of IHE, DRE, and

LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relation­

ship between the IHE and the LEA.

3. The discrepancies between "reality" and "expectation" of the

research relationship are not different among respondents from

the LEA, IHE, or DRE populations.

4a. There are no differences among LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE respon­

dents on their perceptions of the benefits that result from

the IHE/LEA research relationship.

4b. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE,and DCE

respondents on their most common complaints about the IHE/LEA

research relationship.

4c. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE

respondents on their perceptions of what should be done to

foster better collaborative relationships between the LEA

and the IHE.

Assumptions

For purposes of this study, the following assumptions were made:

1. Some relationship exists between research and improved in­

struction.

2. Improved research relations between Local Education Agencies

and Institutions of Higher Education will benefit educational

practice.

Limitations

The study was limited by the following:

The selection of subjects was more purposive than random,

therefore limited direct extrapolation can be made to similar

populations.

Because of the use of the bulk mailing system for the distribu­

tion of one questionnaire, it was not possible to accurately

assess how many subjects received the questionnaire.

The time of the study was limited to one year.

The findings were limited by the scope of the research-designed

questionnaires.

Although there were many varied relationships between the Local

Education Agency and the Institution of Higher Education, this

study was limited to the research relationship.

Definitions of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following terms applied:

AERA: The American Educational Research Association, a pro­

fessional educational organization.

Collaborative: The substantially joint effort of the LEA and

IHE in a research endeavor. The institutions share the respon­

sibility for decision-making in certain significant areas. It

often requires significant organizational modifications.

10

3. Cooperative: The association with the LEA and IHE in joint

efforts of mutual benefits. It is distinguished from a

collaborative in that it may proceed without either cooperating

agency changing its major policies or practices.

4. Consortium: A formal relationship between participating

organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.

5. DCE: Deans of Colleges of Education: One of the populations

sampled in this study.

6. Division H: A formal section of the AERA membership which

focuses on School Evaluation and Program Development.

7. PRE: Directors of Research and Evaluation in public school

districts with a student enrollment above 45,000; one of the

populations sampled in this study.

8. Expectation: How the respondents to the questionnaire perceive

the ideal or "How it should be" in research relationships be­

tween the LEA and IHE.

9. IHE: Institutions of Higher Education. This includes four-

year colleges and universities. Respondents from this group

include all faculty except Deans of Colleges of Education.

10. Informal Relationships: Interactions between IHE and LEA which

result from personal relationships.

11. LEA: Local Education Agency or public school district. Respon­

dents from this group include all research personnel except

Directors of Research and Evaluation.

11

12. Out-of-Dlstrict-Research: Any research initiated and/or

conducted by personnel not employed by the LEA in which the

research is conducted.

13. Personnel Exchange: An arrangement where LEA and IHE personnel

are shared or exchanged for periods of time.

14. Reality: How the respondents to the questionnaire perceive

the state of the art or "How it is" in research relationships

between the IHE and LEA.

15. Research: Empirical investigation as distinguished from field

services or library research.

16. Solicited Cooperative: An arrangement where the IHE is apprised

of topics which the LEA wants investigated.

Organization of the Study

The report of this study is presented in five chapters. Chapter

1 introduced the problem, presented the rationale, made a statement of

the problem and purpose, stated th.e hypotheses, established the

assumptions and limitations, and defined the terms which were important

to the study.

Selected related literature and research are reviewed in Chap­

ter 2. The chapter is introduced and organized into nine sections

which review the following: traditional cooperative relationships between

the IHE and LEA; organizations; focus and purpose; theoretical hin­

drances to collaborative efforts; perceptual hindrances to collaborative

research efforts; institutional hindrances to collaborative research

12

in the IHE; institutional hindrances to collaborative research in the

LEA; sociological hindrances to collaborative research; recommendations

for successful collaboratives; and summary.

The procedures and design of the study are presented in Chapter

3 which includes the following: introduction, sample, description of

the instruments, procedure for collecting the data, method of analysis,

rationale for selection of the statistics used, and summary.

Chapter 4 includes the presentation and analysis of the data

with respect to each of the four hypotheses tested. Tables and figures

are used to present pertinent data.

The summary, conclusions, discussion, and recommendations

are presented in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The following review is the result of an examination of the

literature in the area of collaborative efforts between institutions,

particularly institutions of higher education (IHE) and local educa­

tion agencies (LEA). Both the practical and theoretical problems of

interinstitutional collaboration have been examined.

The review is divided into nine sections: (1) traditional

cooperative relationships between IHEs and LEAs; (2) organizations:

focus and purpose; (3) theoretical hindrances to collaborative efforts;

(4) institutional hindrances of collaborative research in the IHE;

(5) institutional hindrances to collaborative research in the LEA;

(6) sociological hindrances to interinstitutional collaboration;

(7) perceptual hindrances to collaborative research efforts; (8) recom­

mendations for successful collaboratives; and (9) summary.

Traditional Cooperative Relationships between the IHE and the LEA

Historically, the most common activities in which LEAs and

IHEs have cooperated have been:

1. Preservice (teacher and administrator preparation)

2. Student teaching

3. Administrative internship

13

14

4. Continuing education

5. Part-time or guest lectures

6. Inservice activities

7. Consultant services (Hathaway 1980).

Included in this section will be a brief description of the preceding

types of cooperatives.

1. Preservice

The public school's first priority is the education of young

children. The university's contribution to this goal is the education

of the young (and sometimes not so young) adult as a teacher (or ad­

ministrator) of children (Perdew 1968).

In the colonial years, teachers were often poorly trained.

Teacher certification varied from colony to colony. Generally, certi­

fication of elementary teachers was based first on religion and poli­

tics and then on skill (Butts 1953). As America accepted the public

support and control of schools a parallel interest developed in teacher

education (Gutek 1972).

Thirty-four years after the establishment of the first Normal

School for the training of teachers, university instruction for the

training of teachers was initiated with the establishment of the

first permanent chair of education at the University of Iowa in 1873

(Butts 1953). By 1879 the idea of university instruction began to move

forward and increasingly institutions created similar departments to

attract potential secondary teachers or candidates for principalships.

15

The first BA in education was given at the University of

Michigan in 1905 (Butts 1953).

2. Student Teaching

Student teaching has been in existence for a century or more

(Perdew 1968). Gutek (1972) states that in 1875 the curriculum in most

normal schools included practice teaching in a model school under

supervision.

Blake (1980) relates that

. . . some form of experienced based or on the job training component has been a part of (university) teacher education programs in the U.S. since 1904 (page 1).

An important part of teacher preparation is student teaching

which is an excellent test of the theories of education (Mayer 1960).

Students while still enrolled in the IHE are placed under the direction

of a master teacher in the LEA. An IHE professor, who is in charge of

student teaching, evaluates the practical aptitude and success of the

prospective teacher. Student teaching is based on the idea of in­

creased interaction between the IHE and the LEA for the benefit of the

personnel and agencies involved (Sage 1977). This link between the two

institutions has been profitable in at least two ways. In addition to

skills learned by student teaching it serves as a recruitment vehicle

for many LEA administrators (Perdew 1968).

16

3. Administrative Internship

The internship program is based on the concept of learning by

doing. The internship is an experience in which prospective or ex­

perienced administrators work under supervision in actual job related

field roles of various types to perfect their skills and develop an

understanding of the dynamics of school administration (American

Association of School Administrators 1979). At its best, the intern­

ship presents a vital real-life opportunity to integrate academic

preparation with the professional demands of actual situations (Hartley

1968).

Administrative internships have been sponsored by school

districts and universities for many years. Borgeson reports that the

first administrative internship program began in one university in the

early 1930s. However, it was not until the 1950s that the administra­

tive internship took on real stature and began to be included in pre­

paration programs for educational administrators (Blake 1980).

*

There are some educational leaders who purport that the

administrative internship is one of the most significant advances in

the 20th century in the professional preparation of school leaders

(Blake 1980, Borgeson circa 1950). Hartley (.1968) summarizes the im­

portance of the internship w.ith the following statements:

The internship provides an important linkage between public schools and universities. This helps to reduce the lag between the development of new knowledge, methodology, and media by administrative theorists and the implementation by practitioners (page 10).

17

4. Continuing Education

A fundamental characteristic of the professional is that

his/her professional education is never finished. It is also

hypothesized that the less tangible the content with which the pro­

fessional deals, the greater is the need for continuing education

throughout the career (Goldhammer 1969). Professionals recognize the

need to continually upgrade their knowledge and skills in light of the

continuous development of new knowledge, new techniques, and new

interpretations of need (.Committee for the Advancement of School Ad­

ministrators 1979). As this need is recognized many professionals

return to the IHE for matriculation into a formal educational program.

Others enroll in established courses, seminars, or workshops offered

through the Continuing Education College or Department.

5. Part-time or Guest Lectures

To support the idea of increased relationships between the IHE

and LEA, various consortia and other mechanisms have been developed for

insuring joint participation and communication between academia and the

field of practice (Sage 1977). One of these is the personnel exchange

(Hathaway 1980). Under this program personnel from the LEA work in

the IHE, and vice versa, for short or extended periods of time.

6. Inservice Education

As practioners feel themselves out of touch with developments

in the profession, the need arises to be brought back into the fold.

Since many cannot reasonably expect to undergo further extensive formal

18

preparation, they seek the only available alternative—"inservice

education (Howsam 1969). Howsam states that inservice education grew

out of times of rapid change and the need for continuous relearning

and retooling. The major difference between inservice and continuing

education is that the inservice activities must be flexible in relation

to individual needs and adaptable as to design (CASA 1979). Howsam

categorizes inservices into retreats, workshops, seminars, and con­

ferences.

7. Consultant Services

From time to time, the LEA and IHE have needs that require

brief or limited input from each other. Historically, the LEA has

called on IHE for consultant services more frequently than the con­

verse. These services have been in the areas of law, negotiations,

curriculum, evaluation, policy formation, finance, and planning as

well as other areas. This relationship is ongoing and utilized as

needed.

With these types of cooperatives there is a promise that

quality of teaching performance can be improved at every level. The

simple act of working cooperatively on common tasks holds promise for

finding new solutions to old problems and for discovering new changes

(Smith 1965). As a caveat, Smith further warns:

All of the cooperative ventures and partnership structures between teacher education institutions and agencies that are being built will be for naught unless they meet some of the promises for institutional improvement and research development that appear in their stated goals.

19

Although all of the aforementioned cooperatives have had

problems as they experienced growing pains, cooperative activities of

such a kind can go forward without forcing either the LEA or IHE to

seriously modify its major policies or practices (Ladd 1969). Ladd

further states that the traditional joint activities are so tangential

as to require little or no departure from the customary independence

of either institution.

This study examines the etiology of tensions in collaborative

research efforts between the IHE and the LEA. Ladd distinguishes a

cooperative venture from a collaborative one with the following state­

ment :

The term 'collaboration' is used to mean a substantially joint activity of two or more institutions. This is more than one institution's employment of personnel of the other, for example as consultants or part-time faculty members, or purchase of services from the other. In collaboration, as we use the term, the jointness embraces such significant areas as the spending of sizeable amounts of money, the setting of policies on matters of consequence, the making of curriculum decisions, and the recruiting and appointment of staff. In collaboration, in other words, the institutions share the responsibility for decision-making in certain significant areas (page 3).

Several sources of tension will be examined in subsequent

sections in this chapter.

Organizations: Focus and Purpose

Organizations and thus their study can be extremely complex.

This part of the literature review will focus on some aspects of

organization which are germane to this study.

20

All organizations of any considerable size share certain basic

characteristics (Selznick 1957; Spindler 1951; Etzioni 1961). This

means that all such organizations will be characterized by

1. centralization of authority

2. an ordered hierarchy of offices with certain responsibilities

and duties attached to them

3. formalized lines of communication within the ordered hierarchy

4. some agreement within the ranks of its responsible personnel

regarding the purposes of the organization.

All organizations must maintain mechanisms of defense against

potentially disruptive environmental elements and forces—so that they

may continue to exist in order to achieve their goals (Spindler 1959).

According to organizational theory a number of organizational

levels can be identified (Boulding 1956). Figure 1 is an adaptation

and extension of a classification of organizations developed by

Kenneth E. Boulding (Hicks 1975).

This study, however, is concerned with the organization at

the human organization level. Within and among the human organizations

exist five types of relationships (Hicks 1975).

1. Accidental-no participant deliberately associates with another,

yet some benefit often accrues to at least one participant.

2. Parasitic-one participant gains from an association at the

expense of the other.

21

System Level Description of Characterization Examples

1. Elemental interaction

2. Static structure

3. Simple dynamic

4. Cybernetic

5. Simple open

6. Genetic-societal

7. Animal

8. Human

9. Human organiza­tions

10. Transcen­dental

Fundamental

Normative or descriptive models of things, events, and concepts

Predetermined or necessary motions

Possess the ability to modify itself or seek or maintain a certain condition

Simple self-maintenance with capacity to reproduce and ability to accept input, transform that input, and product output

Division and specialization of labor among cells; each part or cell aggregation mutually dependent

Possess specialized information receivers (eyes, ears, nose), complex nervous systems, and a brain

Intelligence, self-reflexivity, time reference, adaptability, control of environment to a certain extent, toolmaking, language, and cultural heritage

Organizations of two or more people

In pursuit of ultimate and perhaps illusive knowledge, truths, and aesthetics

Thoughts Chemical Reactions

Road maps Organization charts

Clocks Standard operating procedures

Heating system with thermostatic control Management using standard cost con­trol system

Germs Body cells

Botanical plants

Cat Dogs Horses Cows

Man

Corporations Social clubs Athletic teams

Religious groups Philosophical orders

Figure 1. Levels of Organization

22

3. One-way-one participant benefits without harming or helping

the other. The one benefitted is indifferently tolerated by

the one providing the benefit

4. Mutualistic-all participants mutually contribute to the well-

being of each other; all participants expect to benefit from

the association.

5. Transcendental-a mutualistic association where all parties

work to achieve the highest productivity in order to benefit

persons outside the immediate association (Likert 1961;

Maslow 1964; McGregor 1967).

The information presented earlier in this study indicated that

the research relationships between the LEA and the IHE are usually

perceived as falling into the first three types of relationships.

One purpose of this study was to obtain information which

could lead to organizational relationships of the latter two types.

A major question which needs to be answered is "What

organizational features of the LEA and the IHE create and/or perpetrate

the ill-feelings between the IHE researcher and the LEA practitioner?"

What conditions conceivably impinge on the production of research?

Rodman (1964) states that the strains are built into the

formal organization of the agency. He further states that the agency

structure of necessity conditions the response of the researchers and

practitioners to each other. He indicates that personality factors

are often cited as the core of the problem and that organizationally

structured strains are overlooked. Holley (1977) concurs that

problems that arise are often fundamentally organizational ones. Two

of the following sections examine the organizational plight of educa­

tional research in the IHE and the LEA. A number or organizational

constraints exist in both organizations (Keun 1979). Only a few will

be examined.

Discussed in the next section are some of the theoretical

hindrances to collaborative research.

Theoretical Hindrances to Collaboration

Theory is useful to the extent that it serves as a mechanism

for understanding events, is productive of hypotheses, and leads to

the identification of new issues and problems (Kimbrough 1976). In­

cluded in this section will be an examination of a few theories which

can be used to explain tensions between the IHE and LEA which hinder

collaborative research efforts.

Many of the problems encountered in IHE-LEA research collabora­

tion appear to be endemic in any interinstitutional collaboration. The

same kinds of problems could conceivably arise in collaborative efforts

between military bodies or industrial corporations which have formed

consortia for a special purpose (Ladd 1969). In Crusade in Europe,

General Eisenhower, for example refers to "mutual irritations between

American soldiers and the English" and at the staff level to "dif­

ferences in national conceptions that struck at the very foundation

of our basic plan."

In 1948 Kurt Lewin used sets of concentric circles in

discussing relations between individuals (Figure 2A). Ladd (1969)

makes reference to this in his article examined in this study. Ladd

summarizes Kean's approach by writing

He used the outer rings to represent 'regions' of the person, attitudes, habits, and the like, that are less 'intimate, personal,' and that can presumably be modified with relative ease and at little psychic cost. The inner circles and the core are, of course, the attitudes and habits which more nearly constitute the self. They are preserved and defended at any cost.

When individuals are in relation to one another, the regions of their persons overlap, though not necessarily, as the use of circles might seem to suggest, symmetrically, (Figure 2B). A joint activity, then, influences, or requires change in, habits ranging from the quite marginal, e.g., where a person is to spend Tuesday afternoons, to the very deep and personal, e.g., strongly-held convictions. And 'personal friction occurs more easily if personal regions are touched' (page 5).

Ladd then draws the conclusions

Like persons, institutions can be regarded as occupying life-spaces which come in layers. When two institutions collaborate, impingements may be only peripheral, or they may affect the most vital interests. There is little psychic cost when organizations become involved in drafting joint recommendations on subjects on which they agree; it is a major change where one institution is given veto power over a key personnel appointment within the other.

Although most of the school system-university collabora­tion in the United States today invades only the outer rings of the respective institutions, in the years just ahead many of us will be engaged in activities which involve our institutions in each other's inner rings. It seems inevitable, other things remaining constant, that these involvements will bring new threats and may arouse new tensions and even antagonisms (page 6).

Figure 2. Lewin's Theoretical Construct of Relations between Individuals

26

.Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC)

In the 1960s theories of organizational development (OD) began

to surface. Some of its chief proponents were Blake and Mouton (1964),

Golembiewski (1969), Argyris (1964), Bennis (1965) and others. This

construct has been applied primarily in private industry, although

some have attempted to introduce OD in the field of education

(Kimbrough 1976).

Carlson (1980) summarizes the concept with the following

definition:

Basically OD is seen as a process for organizations to deal with a range of situations, problems, needs that build in data gathering, analysis, intergroup/interpersonal dialogue and training, goal setting and long range activities which are potentially designed to ameliorate a problem situation or to maximize an opportunity. Further the OD process draws heavily on the behavioral sciences for con­ceptual models theories and appropriate intervention methodologies (page 2).

The aspect of OD which has particular relevance to this study

is that of interpersonal/intergroup conflict. In recent years this

aspect has been referred to as interorganizational organizational

development or IOD (Schemerhorn 1975). Some IOD proponents have

particular interest in interorganizational cooperation or IOC

(Schemerhorn 1975). Although a large body of knowledge has not been

accumulated some theory and research has been developed. Carlson

(1980) advocates that more interest in IOC will emerge over time

given the significant resource constraints facing public education

in the future.

27

Schermerhom (1975) provides an overview of IOC and has

defined it as:

the presence of deliberate relations between otherwise autonomous organizations for the joint accomplishment of individual operating goals (page 847).

Schermerhom further identifies what he calls motivators

(conditions which provide potential benefits for IOC activities)

and costs (conditions which necessitate some potential risks for

IOC activities). Shown in Table 1 is a summary of Schermerhom's

observations. In addition Schermerhom identifies additional factors

of organizational boundary permeability, organizational goals, and

actual opportunity for cooperation which are correlates of IOC.

Boundary permeability is the extent to which boundaries

separating an organization and its environment can be penetrated

and are open to persons external to the organization. There is a

high likelihood or potentioal of IOC where organizational boundaries

are permeable.

There is a high potential for IOC when two or more organi­

zations share complementary organizational goals and recognize some

mutual need. Schermerhom notes that complementary goals may provide

a firmer base for IOC than common goals, since common goals may

generate more competition than cooperation.

28

Table 1. Motivators and Costs Associated with Interorganizational Cooperation (IOC)

MOTIVATORS

1. Situations of resource scarcity (e.g., facilities, services, information and clients) and performance distress (e.g., unfavorable image of identity or negative environmental pressures)

2. Situations in which "coopera­tion" per se takes on a positive value

3. Situations in which a powerful extra-organizational force demand this activity

COSTS

1. Situations which may involve loss of decision-making autonomy

2. Situations which may involve unfavorable ramifications for organizational image or identity

3. Situations which may require the direct expenditure of scarce organizational re­sources (e.g., time, transpor­tation, and communication)

Source: John R. Schermerhorn, "Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation." Academy of Management Journal, December, 1975, Vol. 18, p. 848.

29

Opportunities to cooperate are influenced by the extent to

which prevailing norms for cooperation exist both internal and external

of the organization.

The theory and research on IOC is summarized by Schermerhorn

(1979) in Figure 3.

Getzels-Guba Model

This model is based on a concept of a hierarchy of

superordinate-subordinate relationships within a conceptualized

social system (Getzels 1957). The locus for the allocation and inte­

gration of roles and facilities to achieve the system's goals con­

stitutes the hierarchy. In these relationships statuses are assigned,

facilities are provided, procedures are organized, activities are

regulated, and performances are evaluated. The social system in this

hierarchy is conceived of as having two dimensions, the nomothetic

and the idiographic.

The elements of the nomothetic or normative dimension are

institution, role, and expectation. Institution is defined as an

agency created to carry out certain institutionalized functions.

Roles refer to the "dynamic aspects" of a position and define the

expected behavior of the "role incumbent." Expectations refer to the

obligations and responsibilities of the given role.

The other dimension, the idiographic or personal dimension,

is composed of the individual, personality, and need-disposition.

30

Decision Maker Need

<-

Decision Maker Demand

Organizational Implementation

Perceptions of:

resource scarcity value expectancy

• coercive pressure

Perceptions of:

implications for organization image/identity

• resource requirements for implementation

• organizational domain considera­tions

• organizational support capacities environmental support capacities

Actual levels of:

• organizational support capacities

• environmental support capacities

Note: ^ represent lines of theoretical determination

Figure 3. Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation

31

The elements in this dimension are defined as follows.

Individual is the self. The personality is "the dynamic organization

within the individual." Need dispositions are "individual tendencies

to orient and act with respect to objects in certain manners and

to expect certain consequences from these actions." Observed behavior

within a social system is a function of these two dimensions. Figure

4 shows the Getzels-Guba model.

Kimbrough (1976) explains the interaction of these elements by

summarizing the model's author with

Because a given act is the result of interaction between role factors and personality factors, the general equation derived is B = f(RxP), where B is observed behavior, R is the role defined by its expectations and P is personality of the role incumbent defined in terms of need-dispositions. The relative impact of role and personality factors on behavior will vary with the act, the personality, and the role (page 106).

One general derivation, which relates particularly to this

study, is that when the role incumbents in a particular institution

or interaction have overlapping perceptions, they feel satisfied with

their mutual accomplishments. The converse is also observed. When

the perceptions do not overlap there is less satisfaction and even

dissatisfaction with the interaction (Getzels 1957). More specifical­

ly if the role incumbents of the IHE and the role incumbents of the

LEA differ in their perceptions and/or expectations of the research

relationship, then less satisfaction will be expressed with the re­

lationship by both groups.

32

Nomothetic Dimension

Institution ^ Role ^ Expectation-

Social Observed System Behavior

Individual—^ Personality—^Need Disposition-^

Idiographic Dimension

Figure 4. Getzel-Guba Model of a Social Process

33

The model suggests three sources of conflict: intrarole

conflict, intrapersonality conflict, and role personality conflict.

Intrarole conflict refers to a situation in which a role incumbent must

simultaneously respond to a conflicting or inconsistent expectation.

In the case of a role incumbent in the IHE, s/he must conduct re­

search which the higher education institution demands be scholarly and

the public school institution demands be practical.

Intrapersonality conflicts arise when there are opposing needs

within the role incumbent. For the Ph.D. in the LEA, there may be a

need for continued theoretical discussions with his IHE peers regarding

research, yet s/he also feels the need for practical research to help

in daily decision making.

The third source of conflict, role personality, occurs when

there is a lack of congruence between role expectations and the need

dispositions of a role incumbent. For example, one who accepts a

position as a professor in an IHE must be prepared to teach, research,

and publish. One who has a high need for student contact, which teach­

ing affords, would have difficulty fulfilling his needs and roles.

Thus conflict would arise.

Support for analyzing IHE and LEA relations with social

systems theory is given by Parsons (1958) and Kimbrough (1976).

Parsons suggests that

. . . education, like other complex organizations, could be conceptualized in terms of technical, managerial, and institutional systems. The technical system is involved in actual task performance within the organization, and in education the technical system consists largely of

34

teachers and their support personnel. The managerial system functions to coordinate task performance and to ensure the presence of needed resources to the technical system (page 53).

Kimbrough more simply says

Within a given school, a number of subsystems can be found: classrooms, faculty cliques, informal leader­ship structure, decision making structures, interaction patterns, pupil friendship groups, group norms, alloca­tion patterns, tasks to be performed, and so on. . . . Simply put the school social system takes pupils, teachers, and resources within a given environment and by means of several internal processes transforms these inputs into outputs related to both pupils and staff. These outputs, in turn provide feedback and condition future inputs (page 104).

Clearly illustrated by this model is the need for initial

steps to clarify roles and expectations in order to enhance the

chance for mutual satisfaction among role incumbents in any given

interactions.

Structural-Functional Analysis

Sociologists Robert Merton (1957) and Talcott Parsons (1956)

have developed a conceptual tool which is usually referred to as

structual-functional analysis. The tool can be used to identify

important structural and functional elements which operate within a

system and give defintion and meaning to the interaction occurring

within the system.

The proponents use structure to refer to the formal and

informal relationships within a system and the set of needs and modes

of satisfaction which characterize a particular system (Selznick 1958).

35

A function, which is performed by an occupant of a designated position,

is the result of a wide range of patterned activities. These activities

include, for example, social processes, social roles, controls, pat­

terned emotional responses, cultural patterns, and belief systems

(Merton 1957).

Merton, in establishing a model for functional analysis

observes that functions are those "observed consequences" which encour­

age adaptation or adjustment in a given system. Dysfunctions are

those "observed consequence 1̂ which interfere with adaptation or ad­

justment. In addition functions may be latent or manifest. Manifest

functions are those which are overt and intended by members of the

system. Latent functions are those which are neither intended or per­

ceived. Such "unanticipated consequences" may be functional or

dysfunctional for a specific system (Merton 1957). For the members

of a given system, individually or collectively, what may be functional

for one may be dysfunctional to another.

The utility of this approach is that it helps account for

many of the dynamic features of a system in a systematic way. Not

all of the elements essential to a structural-functional analysis are

included here. Rather, some of the key concepts have been alluded to

in order to make the following analysis.

A collaboration of IHE and LEA researchers is at once a

functional unit which exists to perform a variety of activities to

satisfy needs of a substructure. Still at the same moment they exist

within their own larger structures which sustain them and from which

36

they were created. The collaborative then can be conceived as a

functional structure containing a complex of intermeshing groups' needs

and processes of interaction. The group needs as well as the in­

dividual needs will probably vary among a broad range of physiological,

psychological, and systematic requirements which may conflict with one

another.

A functional imperative for any system is its own survival or

equilibrium (Parsons 1956). This is an important variable in any deci­

sion that an IHE or LEA member makes. Consequently, when a particular

satisfaction, or attempted satisfaction is functional as regards

one member or group of the collaborative, e.g., the LEA, it may

be dysfunctional to other members, e.g., the IHE. Since loyalties

will probably lie with the large structure, conflicts arise. This

suggests that a format for the accommodation, resolution, and solution

to these conflicting needs has to be developed prior to their

manifestation.

Institutional Hindrances of Collaborative Research in the IHE

Introduction

The information presented in this section was taken primarily

from two sources. The first was the information compiled from the

1970 UNESCO Institute Conference and presented by Alfred Yates in

1971. The second is a comprehensive study undertaken by Sam Sieber

and Paul Lazarsfeld in 1966. The purpose of Sieber's study was to

37

measure the numerous social conditions which might conceivably impinge

on the production of research. The techniques which were employed

included questionnaire surveys and interviews of education deans, re­

search coordinators, directors of research units, project directors

in units, authors of published research reports, and observations

of selected research bureaus and centers. Also included in the study

were the works of professional associations, documentary analysis of

materials solicited through the questionnaires, content analysis of

school of education catalogues, research articles published in 1964,

and research proposals submitted to the Cooperative Research Program,

U.S.O.E., a secondary analysis of survey data collected in related

studies, and historical library research.

The author has drawn from these two references that which was

pertinent to this study.

Findings from UNESCO Conference (Yates 1971)

Educational research has recently become a prevalent activity

in nearly every part of the world. Although evidence of direct

causation is yet unproven, educational change has occurred with the

research. These changes are evident in the organization of schools,

the teaching methods, the ways children are grouped, and even the

focus of the curricula. Yet, instead of a healthy, productive coopera­

tion between the researcher and practitioner, an air of mistrust and

mutual recrimination exists. The purpose of the UNESCO Institute

Conference was to ascertain some of the institutional causes of this

problem.

According to Yates (1971) if the various forms of research

organizations were visually represented, no doubt the institution of

higher education would emerge as a prominent figure in the research

process. Historically, the IHE has been primarily responsible for the

vast amounts of research compiled to date. However, there is evidence

to suggest that the way in which educational research is structured

and financed has limited research output. There are signs that the

IHE is losing the monopoly it once held as other research agencies

begin to emerge. At present, in the United States, there are five

major types of settings for the conduct of educational research: IHE

based, Regional Educational Laboratories, State Departments of Educa­

tion, Local Education Agencies, and Private Testing and Research

Organizations.

The participants in the UNESCO Conference studied five

institutional hindrances to collaborative research. Parts of three

of them will be discussed in this study.

I. Structural Aspects of Educational Research: Problems Associated with Structure and Finance

Yates argues that one of the unresolved issues in any

argument concerning a viable structure for educational research is the

role to be assigned to the IHE. He submits that one of the most

crucial problems associated with the organization of research is the

balance between pure and applied research. Some of the developing

39

patterns of organization constitute a threat to the scope and influences

of pure research. The UNESCO participants argued that pure research

has a vital role to play in the composite picture of educational

research and change.

Research policy determines the balance between applied and

pure research.

However, the control of research policy is largely determined by the way in which research is organized, and in particular, by the methods used to provide the financial support it requires (Yates 1971, 105).

The reports indicated that the financial system of earmarked

grants—funds allocated to a specific topic—has become common practice,

almost to the exclusion of discretionary funds. The earmarked grant

system tends to encourage individualized piecemeal approaches to re­

search. The continuity and replication needed in research is virtually

ignored. Neither the IHE or LEA benefit from the piecemeal approach.

In the present structure neither the interests of the practitioners

nor the researchers are adequately represented in the determination of

research policy.

II. Recruitment and Training of Staff

Although there are no shortages of educational problems, there

is an alarming shortage of qualified educational researchers. A sig­

nificant portion of the discussion at the conference focused on the

need to improve training for potential researchers. After a lengthy

discussion it was concluded that the task and responsibilities of a

40

researcher have not been clearly defined, and until these

qualifications have been clearly stated, it is virtually impossible

to design a course that will effectively furnish them.

The participants reported a need for more specialized courses.

Yates summarized the reports with the following:

. . . the present arrangements for the training of researchers are mainly the responsibility of university departments or schools of education and, for the most part, are not pro­vided exclusively as such. Indeed the courses that potential researchers follow are identical with those offered to intending teachers, and even the subsequent, more advanced courses are not specifically devised to prepare them for full-time educational research. On the contrary, the courses in university departments are primarily designed for those who are destined to become practitioners—teachers, lecturers in colleges of educa­tion, and administrators. They have pronounced practical bias at the elementary stage toward the preparation of effective teachers and this bias is not wholly absent from the later stages which lead to the master's and doctor's degrees. Potential researchers take these courses, not so much because they are specially appropriate to their needs but rather because they are, at present, the only ones available.

The practice of associating the training of researchers with that of teachers we regard as potentially harmful to recruitment and far from conducive to the development of suitable courses for researchers (page 51).

Upon completion of the same basic course of training the researcher is

expected to help solve educational problems which the latter could not.

III. Dissemination of Research Results

If the defects in the present structure and organization of

educational research were all remedied and a satisfactory flow of

suitably qualified and trained recruits secured, the success of the

enterprise still could not be guaranteed.

41

For research to be effective as an instrument of educational improvement, it must make an impact on those who make the decisions that affect day-to-day practices of the policy-makers, administrators, and teachers. It is clearly not enough to be able to demonstrate a high level of output; it is necessary also to show that its products are being efficiently marketed and that they are giving satisfaction to the consumers. The evidence before us suggests that for some time now the products of educational research have been stockpiled. Potential customers examine the samples that are offered for their inspection, but con­spicuously refrain from placing any sizeable order (page 63).

To the many and myriad problems confronting the practitioner

research has little or nothing to contribute. Yet even in the highly

researched areas, the information compiled figures minutely in the

decisions of the practitioners. The UNESCO participants suggested

that the organization for dissemination was a primary factor.

The most prominent form of dissemination in the United States

is through the publication of books and articles. While this method

most probably meets the needs of researchers, the use of written

publications to disseminate information to practitioners has not

succeeded.

The use of written publications as a means of disseminating research results to practitioners involves even more dif­ficult problems. The kind of report that serves to acquaint one researcher with the activities of another is clearly not serviceable as an instrument of wider dissemination. We have noted that a number of research organizations have adopted the policy of issuing reports in two forms—a straightforward technical report for those who are deeply versed in research methodology, and a layman's version. This seems to be a commendable procedure but simply to recommend it would be to beg a number of important questions. Just how and by whom this second kind of report can be effectively written has not yet been determined.

42

To regard the problem as a straightforward one of translation is to misrepresent it entirely. Many practitioners and even some researchers fall into the error of assuming that it is the jargon employed by social scientists that stands between the average reader of a research report and a full understanding of its contents and implications (page 73).

In their own defense the participants concluded:

One of the major obstacles to the effective dissemination of research results is the stubborn fact that those to whom the information is addressed are unwilling to give it their full attention. A good deal of this report is devoted to the openly confessed shortcomings of those who direct and conduct educational research. We have almost immolated ourselves in the attempt to discover defects in the present arrangements and we shall revert to self-criticism. In the meantime, however, it is a refreshing change to be able to apportion some of the blame to others. Educational practitioners are pro­fessionally qualified individuals who have accepted responsibility for the administration and conduct of educational affairs. Their failure to seek out and to utilize information that might enable them to dis­charge that responsibility more effectively we regard as reprehensible, especially since there is evidence that those who supply the information have been at pains to make it readily available. It seems fair to say that the researchers have gone more than half-way (which admittedly may not be far enough) to meet the consumers' requirements. The burden of our complaint is that the latter have made scarcely any effort in response to these overtures (page 69).

The conference participants agreed that for the most part,

practitioners have not learned to appreciate either the potential

utility or the limitations of research, largely because they have not

troubled to inform themselves concerning its objectives and its

methods. Research is often expected to provide solutions to problems,

and to highly specific problems at that, when all that is claimed on

its behalf is that it can contribute to a closer understanding of the

processes involved. All that researchers offer is well-attested

evidence that can help to make the practitioners' judgments more

firmly based. Their findings are not intended as a substitute for

their judgments. The practitioners, on the other hand, have demanded

the prescription of immediately applicable remedies and, finding that

these are not forthcoming, have turned almost petulantly away, refusing

the alternative forms of aid that could be supplied.

It might be argued, on behalf of the LEAs, that their mis­

conceptions stem from the fact that their education and training have

not included any adequate explanation of the nature of research, but

against this must be set the unpalatable fact that they have, in the

main, displayed little or no eagerness to embrace the opportunities

for enlightenment that have been offered them. One is thus forced to

conclude that there are deeper underlying causes that determine their

relative indifference—and sometimes their positive hostility—toward

research. The participants concluded that the only solution to this

problem was a closer cooperative relationship between the researcher

and the practitioner.

Findings From the Sieber Study

A substantial portion of the following text was taken directly

from the Sieber Study (Sieber 1966).

Complex organizations make varied demands upon their members,

especially when there is a low level of specialization according to

the tasks which need to be performed. Organizations also allocate

44

resources in ways which emphasize certain goals while playing down

others. Institutional goals and resources affect both the quality

and the amount of effort devoted to various roles. Hence, to under­

stand the barriers to the advancement of educational research, it is

not sufficient to pay attention to the intellectual or theoretical

content of research, as vitally important as this topic may be.

The study of organizational setting is at least as important.

A recurrent theme in this report was the potential and often

manifest conflict between the pursuit of different goals within

schools of education. While schools vary in the emphasis placed on

the functions of teaching, research, and service as obligations of

the faculty, virtually all of the schools are responsible in some

measure for all three functions. Since the same personnel are often

engaged in each of these task-areas, it is obvious that resources

and commitments are sometimes strained. When the deans, research

coordinators, and directors of research units were asked to check what

they considered the major hindrances to the advancement of educational

research, the four hindrances most frequently mentioned were organiza­

tional hindrances: financial support, non-research duties, kinds and

amount of organization provisions for research, and the quality of

research training. The quality of research techniques and the problems

chosen for investigation—two major intellectual shortcomings—followed

fifth and sixth in order of frequency of citation as major hindrances.

45

Congruently, researchers in the LEA often cite financial support,

lack of research training and the problems chosen for investigation

as major hindrances to 1HE/LEA research relations (Kean 1979, Rankin

1979).

Another important variable which Sieber investigated was the

"value climate" of research.

The statuses responsible for the governance and performance of

professional roles in schools of education differ widely in their

emphasis on educational research as an obligation of the faculty. Most

often it is the dean of the graduate facilities who ranks research above

teaching or service, and least often it is the faculty of education.

These conclusions were based on the replies of the deans of schools of

education to the following questions:

1. Graduate schools or departments of education vary according to

the rank order of field service, teaching, and research as

responsibilities of the faculty. There may also be disagree­

ment within the same school about the relative emphasis that

should be placed on these activities. To the best of your

knowledge, how would the groups listed below rank the three

activities in your school?

2. There are many forces, both inside and outside schools of

education, which shape their goals. In your judgment, which

of the following groups most affected the balance of emphasis

between teaching, field service and research in your institu­

tion, either directly or indirectly, during the past five years?

46

The groups which were listed in these two questions, together

with the replies of the deans, are presented in Table 2. The groups

have been ranked according to the formal hierarchy of authority,

beginning with the trustees and moving down through the hierarchy to

the faculty members. In the lower part of Table 2, public school

systems and funding agencies outside the university have been added.

What is quite clear in the left-hand column of Table 2 is

that groups at the top and at the bottom of the hierarchy de-emphasize

research. Thus, the faculty is as little likely as the trustees of

the university to give top priority to research. The deans of the

graduate faculties most often emphasize research as the primary function

of the faculty of education (50%), while the deans of education follow

second (31%). But education deans are a poor second to graduate deans

in placing research ahead of teaching and field service. What needs

most to be underscored in this table, however, is that the group which

is responsible for carrying out projects, e.g., the faculty,is the

least likely to regard research as a primary obligation.

A comparison of the distribution of influence (right-hand

column of Table 2) with the distribution of favorable attitudes towards

research (left-hand column) provided an important clue to the question

of why research in schools of education seems to be lacking in

vitality. With the exception of the trustees, those who least often

emphasize research most often have the power to determine the balance

of emphasis among goals. The president of the university, the educa­

tion chairmen, and the education faculty least often place research

47

Table 2. Emphasis on Research by Various Groups, and the Influence Which They Have on the Goals of the School (according to deans)

% Schools (reported by deans)

a. Where each group b. Where each group sees research as the influences the , primary goal balance of emphasis

Groups within the university on goals

Trustees 9% 1%

President 28 51

Graduate faculties dean 50 36

Education dean 31 32

Educational dept. chairmen 19 51

Education faculty 8 85

Groups outside the university

Public school systems 3 32

Funding agencies outside the university 73 47

No. of deans: (74) (74)

Source: Sam Sieber. The Organization of Educational Research in the United States. New York: Columbia University. Bureau of Applied Social Research. 1966, p. 25.

in the first rank, but most often have the power to set the goals of

the schools. The dean of the graduate faculties and the education

deans—the authorities who most often emphasize research—least often

have any influence (again with the exception of the trustees).

If the picture of goals and of influence drawn by the deans

is accurate, it appears that it is the faculty members in education

who are mainly responsible for the secondary or even tertiary position

of research in many schools of education.

The extent to which public school systems are said to place

primary emphasis on research as a faculty responsibility is also shown

in Table 2. More than half of the deans (56%) maintain that the

public schools rank teaching first, service second, and research third

in order of importance. Further, about a third of the deans indicated

that school systems exert a major influence on the goals of the

professional school. Another important source of the de-emphasis on

research, then, resides in the expressed needs of public school

practitioners for professional training and services.

No doubt one of the major counterbalances to the downgrading

of research by faculty members is the funding agency outside the

university. As shown in Table 2, these agencies are widely recognized

as principally concerned with the promotion of research (73 per cent

of the deans so responding); and they are also widely regarded as

exerting influence on the schools of education to move the balance

of emphasis towards research.

49

The goals emphasized by various groups within IHE is by no

means an irrelevant issue, for the value climate of schools of

education is a fairly accurate predictor of the quality and type of the

research which is turned out. The quality of research produced by

the school of education is higher when each group considers research

to be the primary obligation of the faculty. It was concluded that

the value climate is an important feature of the organizational con­

text of research. Since the faculty of education least often empha­

sizes research, and since the faculty tends to set the goals of the

school, research is frequently demoted to a relatively low position

in the institutional hierarchy of goals.

Rossman (1978) comments that it seems ludicrous in an environ­

ment where the faculty is "committed to seeking truth," that research

is not a typical faculty activity. He attributes this phenomenon to

three causes.

1. Research activities are often perceived as infringing on a

faculty member's autonomy thus causing swift and negative

reaction.

2. In those instances where faculty are engaged in research

projects, if the data collected are perceived as being of

primary use to off campus agencies, with little positive

pay off for the college and especially for the faculty,

not many will be eager participants.

3. Regardless of the extent to which faculty members are

involved in advisory or collaborative activities related

to research, if these functions are perceived as tools of the

administration, and therefore threatening, the reaction will

be negative.

Another potential source of hindrance is explained by Saupe

(1978). The basic perspectives of the researcher and the academician

are in conflict. The academician views the institution as a base for

his professional enterprise, teaching,and scholarship. In contrast

the researcher sees the institution as belonging to and a servant of

society. To insist that both these functions--research and teaching—

be conducted by the same individuals can only be a source of tension.

It is little wonder that the academician, who is forced to conduct

research in the LEA in order to "publish and not perish," has difficulty

collaborating with LEA personnel.

Sieber found that collaboration in research, even within the

colleges of education, was rare. The emphasis was on independent

research. There are grounds for believing that an individualistic

approach to research is somewhat peculiar to education. There is also

very good reason to believe that schools of education support a unique

climate of highly individualized research effort.

When this issue was explored with research bureau directors,

the authors were informed that one of the main sources of "individual­

ism" on the part of educational researchers was pressure to achieve

recognition as a means of institutional advancement. Further,

collaborative research was not valued by the institutions administra­

tion. It appears then that research organizations can play a vital

role in the promotion or discouragement of collaborative work in this

individualistic climate of schools of education. It may be true also

that the administration is the key figure in stimulating joint research.

Institutional Hindrances to Collaborative Research in the LEA

The movement to establish separately organized divisions of the

school system to conduct educational research began 68 years ago

(Witsky 1938). These divisions were created primarily to investigate

a pressing local problem and/or to oversee the new testing activities

which did not fit into the other public school departments. Over 40

years ago Jonas Witsky defined the public school research bureau as

a separately organized division of the school system, whose primary function is to make investigations and to assemble and interpret data for the improvement of school procedures (page 25).

Justman (1968) described the major work of a research bureau

in a school system as a "bread and butter task" performing tasks re­

lated to various administrative operations. In 1979, Barber stated

that the purpose of educational research in the public schools was

to improve the educational process, program content, or tech­niques for the local district. Further, if it is to be of value the results of the research should be valid, reliable, and timely so as to assist decision makers to evaluate problems and make rational defensible decisions (page 1).

Key to all of the preceding statements is the idea that

educational research conducted by a local education agency is to im­

prove the operation of the schools. The fact of the matter is that

research in the LEA is not really research in the English and English

52

(dictionary) definition of research. Usually research done in the LEA

will be action or operational research (Payne 1956). Rarely is LEA

research conducted to systematically discover the theoretical underly-

ings of a problem (Barber 1979). In short the primary purpose for the

organization known as the department of research and evaluation in an

LEA is to provide information for decision making.

Obviously then the LEA organizational purposes differ from that

of the IHE or any other clinical research facility; not in methodology,

merit, or rigor but in context and communication (Schutz 1976).

How then does the IHE researcher fit into the organizational

research structure of the LEA? LEA decision makers would utilize the

results of basic research in their decision making/planning process—

but since basic research is not problem oriented—they cannot withhold

the decision process until theory is translated into practice. Conse­

quently, when problems arise the LEA decision maker chooses to ignore

the arguments of basic-fundamental research over policy research or

field investigation. In doing so the system becomes less tolerant of

the necessity of basic research, (Barber 1972) and by extension basic

researchers (Rodman 1964).

Another organizational factor which affects research relations

is cost. In the decision to participate in out-of-district research,

the cost of conducting the research is a paramount consideration.

The cost to conduct a research study with internal staff is

approximately one half the cost it would be for outsiders to conduct

the same study. Costs are defined not only in actual dollars, but in

53

staff time, facility utilization and length of fruition. If an LEA can

afford an internal research staff the productivity for that staff is

very high (Barber 1979). Barber illustrates this with the following:

A case in point is Eugene, Oregon where a full time profes­sional staff of 7 people have produced approximately 169 studies in four years at cost of approximately $3000 per study. At least half of those studies have brought about policy change, district procedural changes, or program mod­ifications within the district (page 6).

A fourth LEA organizational constraint is the Board of Educa­

tion, State, and federal regulations by which the LEA must abide.

Many of these regulations provide limited access to resources which the

IHE researcher needs in order to conduct a successful study.

One issue that continues to plague IHE researchers is the re­

searcher's right to know and an individual's right to privacy (Carter

1979). It is well recognized that if a researcher is to carry out his/

her duty she/he must have access to the needed information. Conversely,

however, such a need must not jeopardize an individual's well-being.

What student information falls within a researcher's right to know re­

mains problematic (Carter 1979). It is the tendency of the organiza­

tion to protect its members (Thayer 1973).

Most LEAs, that had research departments, were developing pol­

icies and procedures to screen out-of-district research requests even

before the 1974 Family Rights and Privacy Act (FRPA) (Barber 1972).

Organizationally, the FRPA does not restrict the right of the LEA to

obtain information to assist it in teaching, testing, program develop­

ment, etc., when the purpose is to assist the students for whom it is

54

responsible. What the Act has done is to impose even more restrictions

on outsider researchers by:

1. restricting access to school files

2. requiring written parental consent

3. requiring that parents have a right to inspect all instruc­

tional material used in the research.

From the LEAs perspective the new laws have "brought about a

revision, a clarity, and a rigorous implementation of policy directed

toward the protection of their constituent's rights of privacy" (Barber

1976). However, from the perspective of the IHE researcher the laws

have placed basic educational research at a virtual standstill

(Kerlinger 1977; Carter 1979; Barber 1979).

A final organizational variable which hinders collaborative re­

search is planning. While LEAs plan on a year to year basis, IHEs and

other institutions of research must have longer timelines to conduct

research. School organization is in a constant state of flux which

makes prolonged collaboration more difficult (Holley 1977).

The researcher in the IHE can define a general area of interest

and plan a series of studies related to an overall objective. The re­

searcher in the LEA ordinarily does not have the latitude in his/her

planning. In a school system, the demands upon the research department

are so heavy that an integrated program cannot be organized. Attempts

to help meet the needs of the out-of-district researcher might mean

the neglect of other in-district areas of concern (Justman 1968).

55

Sociological Hindrances to Inter-Institutional Collaboration

Discussed in this section are non-essential subcultural

differences commonly found in' American IIIEs and LEAs that can cause

tension in collaborative research efforts.

Ladd (1969) states:

probably the most exasperating tensions, but those most capable of being overcome, are those that derive from the clash of diver­gent customs and attitudes which dp not reflect essential or neces­sary differences between the respective types of institutions but are characteristics they have taken on for other reasons (page 23).

Ladd makes reference to "the different subcultures of the IHE and LEA."

If these differences are not recognized they are likely to cause "sub-

cultural clashes."

Chilcott (1969) writes of the "special" culture of public school

administrators. He writes:

. . .educational administrators, as a group, have developed their own special culture; one that is unique to them. That is to say educational administrators or any group have devel­oped their own cultural map with special meaning—language, role expectations, behavior, and world view (page 443).

He further states that much of any group's culture exists at the

subconscious level.

Zahn (1967) in her observations of an IHE and LEA working to­

gether noted the similarity between some of the problems of IHE and LEA

people working together and those of American technological experts

working with persons of other cultural backgrounds.

The following statement from noted anthropologist George M.

Foster (1962) further elucidates the tensions which this section ad­

dresses :

56

To the person suffering from cultural shock "everything seems to go wrong," and he becomes "increasingly outspoken about the shortcomings of the country he expected to like. ... It is obvious that the host country and its unpredictable inhabitants are to blame." "The malady ... is caused in part by communi­cation problems, and in part by gnawing feelings of inadequacy which grow stronger and stronger as the specialist realizes he is not going to reach all of those technical goals he had marked out." He feels, too, that the contribution he came prepared to make is not appreciated. Typical criticisms of the host country are: "These people can't plan," "They have no manners," "They ought to be taught how to get things done in a hurry." These symptoms reflect a failure to understand the customs of the coun­try and to accept them "for what they are." For the professional a contributing cause is the fear that in this strange situation he may be unable to achieve the professional success which his self-esteem and his reputation require. Foster, incidentally, recommends that the technician draw upon the services of the anthropologist, so that he can develop as broad as possible an understanding of the customs he enounters, their interrelation­ships and their dynamics (page 188).

The following categories of tension have been identified by Ladd (1969).

They are offered as suggestive and incomplete.

Differences with Regard to Policy-Making

In universities the faculty is accustomed to making policy deci­sions. This means extensive discus­sion of policy questions, a lot of prior checking with many people on actions of many types, and often collective drafting of documents. University faculty members get ner­vous when they see administrators making decisions rapidly. And ad­ministrators can ordinarily commit an institution to a project only in the sense of agreeing to enable faculty members who want to become involved in it to do so.

University plans tend to be de­signed to provide considerable flex-, ibility and latitude; universities choose general directions, seek

funds which will give them free­dom, and reject funds with too many strings attached. Thus university people tend to be con­fident that they will remain in control of a project and are not inclined to fear being pushed around.

In school systems adminis­trators commonly make most major decisions, with varying amounts of consultation with others. Decision-making tends to be more centralized. This means rapid decision-making. School people tend to become nervous when de­cisions have to await the outcome of extensive deliberation or checking with various categories

57

of persons, or when discussion is continued after agreement appears to have been reached. Host public school teachers lack experience and skill in policy-making.

Public schools are inclined to accept all moneys that become

available and are thus more sus­ceptible to direction-setting by whoever has the power of the purse. For this reason public school people are more sensitive about possible outside control and more jealous of their inde­pendence.

Differences with Regard to the Role of the Written Word

University people work naturally and easily with the written word: commonly they start a conversation by presenting a written summary of an idea. They draft, read, tear apart, and redraft plans, proposals, and policy statements with pleasure. Many of them can hardly think about a problem without writing or reading what someone else has written about it. They make much use of black­boards, even in their private of­fices. When agreements have been put in writing, university people tend to treat them with great seri-ouseness. When problems arise they are inclined to put their views down in the form of memoranda. They tend to get frustrated by public school people's unwillingness to spend time on careful reading of memoranda and drafts.

University people tend to write formally and heavily. They some­times resent the informality of some school people's productions.

Public school people typical­ly communicate with one another mostly by the spoken word. Often they feel no need to put an im­portant idea in writing. If they do write, it tends to be at a late stage and to indicate near-finality. They tend to get ner­vous when university people present them with a draft or statement early in a joint under­taking, or when disagreement has arisen. They are less accus­tomed to radical criticism of their own written products. Written materials dealing with complex issues, even materials they have helped to draft, often appear to them of little use and may receive from them only per­functory attention.

Public school people often write in a breezy style, using line drawings, and so on. They resent the heaviness and length of most university persons' products.

Differences with Regard to Daily Activities

University faculty members have substantial control over the prior­ities on their time and over their own schedules. They can make them­selves available for meetings and other activities during the morning

and for a whole day or several days at a time. They have sub­stantial vacations during parts of which, at least, they are expected to work on their own. They resent the limits within

58

which they have to work in setting appointments and meeting times with public school people.

University faculty members do a good deal of their work in interac­tion with one another, in informal conversations, conferences, commit­tees, and sometimes teams. They want and expect school teachers to be as ready as they are for profes­sional activities in groups and are sometimes irritated to learn that this is not the case. They tend to enjoy sharp argument and disagree­ment, and they express disagreement freely, often inconsiderately, sometimes even rudely.

Public school people at all levels are expected to be at their posts during regular working hours. Teachers have little control over their day-to-day schedules. They

are usually unavailable for collaborative activities during the morning hours. Holidays are explicit and limited in num­ber. Except for the highest administrators, public school personnel are not expected to work during vacations.

Public school teachers do most of their work alone. They are less accustomed to working in professional groups and less skilled in it. They sometimes feel overridden by university people when they work in joint committees. Perhaps because many of them have little profes­sional companionship during the day, they are inclined to be courteous and considerate in meetings. They tend to avoid, and to be put off by, remarks which may seem to show disap­proval or sharp disagreement.

Differences in Attitudes toward Cooperation

Universities have engaged in co­operative undertakings comparatively frequently but usually at little cost to their established ways of doing things. Thus, partly because they are unaware of the true cost of collaboration, university people tend to favor it in principle and to regard persons who do not favor it as uncooperative.

School systems have little ex­perience in collaboration, and their

experience with cooperation has been chiefly in helping colleges with teacher training. School people see more clearly the threat collaboration may pose to their established ways and tend to be fearful of losing their autonomy in collaborative ventures. When they are courted by universities, they tend to fear that the uni­versity people wish to take over.

59

Differences with Regard to Expenditure of Funds

University people have a tradi­tion of liberal construction of missions, of service obligations, and of use of government and foun­dation funds. They tend to approve expenditures which are "in the spirit" of the original plan. Of­ten they are more liberal about delegating authority to commit funds.

Public school people are more inclined to be concerned about value-for-dollar; they are more cautious about the justification of individual expenditures; and they usually reserve to relative­ly few persons the authority to approve expenditures of funds.

Differences Relating to Research and Development

Universities tend today to col­lect numbers of people whose pref­erence for theoretical matters is so great that they are uninterested in down-to-earth realities. To bor­row Lazarsfeld's distinction, uni­versity faculties tend to be more interested in "academically-induced research" than in "field-induced research," that is, they tend to start building new theory by exam­ining the implications of existing theory rather than by examining real phenomena. They tend to be reluctant to try to provide help with the solv­ing of down-to-earth problems.

"University professors frequent­ly place highest priority on the quickly executed, neatly packaged, and statistically manageable research problems."

Public school staffs are largely composed of persons who are primarily concerned with the solving of immediate practical problems. They are often in­clined to doubt or deny the value of any help they might receive from a theoretician.

Those school people who are interested in basic research tend to be most concerned about large problems which are difficult to formulate scientifically and to study, and which require ambi­tious, sophisticated, expensive, long-term research designs.

Differences with Regard to Personnel Matters

Universities make relatively few appointments and tend to pursue in­dividuals who have been recommended. Routinely they screen many names thoroughly and at length. Many, before making an offer, will inter­view three to six candidates for a day or two each. Throughout the

procedure they are trying to sell candidates on the positions as well as judging the candidates. They tend to regard any less tho­rough procedure as casual and ineffective.

60

Universities usually promote individuals without greatly changing their duties, and, when new positions are created, they usually bring in new persons to fill them. In general, vacancies arise less frequently than in school systems, and filling them has less effect on the overall staffing picture. Positions can often be left unfilled for sub­stantial periods of time or can be filled reasonably satisfac­torily by graduate students. For all these reasons university people tend to move more slowly to fill positions and often delay for long periods of time before taking final action. They may misinterpret the tendency of school people to move rapidly in joint staffing as being intended to limit their freedom.

Universities pay relatively low salaries for highly qualified scholars and administrators. The discrepancies between salaries do not clearly reflect the nature of individuals' responsibilities.

Universities have moderate numbers of non-instructional staff personnel, ranging from profession­als through gradudate assistants to typists.

School systems make many ap­pointments. They commonly soli­cit and respond to applications and concentrate on judging be­tween the individuals who want the position. They tend to take for­mal qualifications (e.g., degrees or certification) as prima facie evidence of competence. They are inclined to be impatient with any extensive collection of dossiers or interviewing, which to them ap­pear fussy, burdensome, or expensive.

Promotion within school sys­tems usually involves a change in duties. Thus there is a great deal of change in staff assignments. Usually, so far as possible, their appointments are made from within their own staffs, thus creating vacancies. Staff­ing is extremely tight, and one person's doubling in two positions is not usually practicable. Al­so, there are not usually well-qualified persons available who can fill in as temporary substi­tutes. So the selection of a person for a new assignment starts a chain reaction of vacan­cies which must be filled imme­diately. School people find it difficult or impossible to ac­commodate themselves to the leisurely pace of university staffing practices, and they may interpret it as showing a lack of commitment to collaboration or of concern for the school system's needs.

Public school systems pay higher salaries for topflight personnel. Salaries are keyed to the nature of the duties, with administrators typically being paid more than teachers.

Public school systems are usually almost devoid of staff persons (as distinguished from line persons). University peo­ple sometimes find it difficult to relate to the school system in the absence of an opposite number or what they would regard as adequate staff work.

61

Differences with Regard to Personal Commitment to the Organization

In universities staff members tend to feel relatively little ob­ligation to give up their indepen­dence for the sake of preserving or strengthening the institution; a professor's first loyalty is usually to the broader community of scholars in his field. Univer­sity people are inclined to be in­dependent in their dealings with their own institutions and with state and federal authorities.

In public school systems there is a tradition that the staff has an obligation to help preserve and strengthen the in­stitution and the educational system in general. "Rocking the boat" is frowned upon and is relatively uncommon. Public criticism which may play into the hands of outside critics is taboo.

Differences with Regard to Relative Statuses

In universities internal sta­tus tends to be non-linear and is often difficult for outsiders to gauge; it does not necessarily relate directly to rank, to salary, to nature of responsibility, or to whether there is a name on the door or a rug on the floor. Status dif­ferences impede communication of information and views and affect decision-making somewhat less than in most organizations. Relation­ships between administrators and instructional staff tend to have an informal, give-and-take charac­ter, often a cordial one. (To some extent this is true even or rela­tionships with students.) Pressures from "below" are not usually resent­ed. University people are sometimes offended by the formality of role relationships in school systems.

In society at large university personnel in general are assigned comfortably high socio-economic status; some may be outside the ordinary class system. Many of them are unaware of the constrain­ing effect status differences have

on their relationships with pub­lic school people. Some tend to fear building too close relation­ships with public school people.

In school systems role rela­tionships tend to be hierarchi­cal. Differences in status are clear and well-advertised and have a considerable limiting ef­fect on communication of informa­tion and views. Administrators tend to resent pressures from below. School people of various kinds are sometimes made uncom­fortable by the absence of role clarity in universities.

In society at large public school people are in general as­signed middle-class status. Many of them feel somewhat insecure and even defensive in dealings with college professors, deans, and presidents.

62

Differences in Educational, Political, and Social Views

University people tend to be more critical of the educational, political, and social status quo. They tend to be more optimistic about current egalitarian trends, and to favor more rapid change in all areas. Thus they tend to be more liberal than the general com­munity. They tend to identify themselves with civil rights and

other reform movements and to look to public education as a means of social reform.

Public school people tend to be representative of the middle-class community and to have mod­erate to conservative attitudes about proposals for educational, political, and social reform.

Ladd concludes his compilation with:

Each of these differences between the two subcultures is a difference which in the opinion of one observer or another has provided a point of friction between public school and univer­sity personnel. As has been suggested over and over again, in so far as they are not charted, understood, or anticipated, the frustrations they cause will be the more intense. The converse is equally true.

63

Perceptual Hindrances.to Collaborative Research Efforts

Introduction

How does research influence educational practice? No

satisfactory empirical answer to this question exists (Kerlinger 1977).

It has been reported that the lag between educational research and

practice is about 50 years.

Researchers say that this is the result of the school practi­

tioners' lack of interest in innovation and theory (Carlson 1980). The

LEA practitioner purports that it is because nothing of immediate in­

terest to them is researched (Hathaway 1979). It is obvious that feelings

of isolation and victimization occur for both participants (Haase 1979).

Included in the rationale for this study were statements on the

perceptions of the IHE researcher and the LEA practitioner regarding

the research relationship between them. As in most areas of endeavor

where people are involved, research in education is vitally influenced

by relationships among people (Hines 1956). The relationship between

the researcher and practitioner is plagued by a variety of problems

(Rodman 1964). Perception is one of them.

The purpose of this section is to review the perceptions of the

participants in an effort to further delineate the problem.

Perception: The Institution of Higher Education

Carter (1979)—Without consideration of possible influences,

too many administrators view research as an inessential activity. In

other words even though they spend little time analyzing the research

64

findings, they automatically oppose the activity. Their failure to

recognize the usefulness of research contributes to the continuing

strain in the relationship between school districts and universities.

Additionally, it is the failure of the LEA to set forth clear policy

for conducting research which results in problems for school personnel.

Haase (1979)—University researchers remark that school system

educators make unreasonable demands on their time and resources in ex­

change for use of a small amount of their students' time and facilities.

Their demands indicate that school personnel do not understand the im­

portance of proper conditions under which a study must be conducted.

Kerlinger (.1971)—Researchers maintain that neither the poten­

tialities nor the limitations of their expertise are recognized by the

practitioner. On the one hand, innovations are often introduced with­

out regard to such relevant evidence as is available. The practitioner

prefers to rely on experience, intuition, or simply what is fashionable.

On the other hand, the requests that are made often reveal misconcep­

tions about the kinds of evidence that educational research can provide.

Justman (.1968)—Most individuals who enter teaching as a pro­

fession are not interested in research. Most are required to take a

research course at the graduate level. They approach it with feelings

of anxiety, complete it with marked feelings of relief, and live hap­

pily ever after—never feeling the need to read, talk or think about

research from then on.

65

Tyler (1974)—The findings of research make continuing

contributions to knowledge; but utilizing the research and utilizing

it effectively is rarely studied and often results in problems.

Gephart (1980)—A dream (of the practitioner) is that whenever

a teaching problem is encountered, the names of people who have done

research on that topic could be readily found. Once contacted, they

could give immediate solutions to the problem. It is an impossible

dream!

Ladd (.1969)—The tempo of educational change will always be

slower than the institutions' sense of urgency to alter programs and

procedures as new problems come to light.

Perceptions: The Local Education Agency

Yates (1971)—Those who play an active role in the educational

process—as policy makers, administrators and teachers—complain that

researchers pursue their esoteric activities without any apparent ap­

preciation of the most pressing problems confronting those who have to

make practical day-to-day decisions. Further, even those reports that

may be marginally relevant to the practitioners* concerns are camou­

flaged by unfamiliar jargon.

Rodman (1967)—The practitioner feels that his work, is being

assessed by someone with a vested interest in discerning errors.

Weiss (1972)—The practitioners' roles and the norms of their

service professions tend to make them unresponsive to research requests

and promises. As they see it, the imperative is service; research is not

66

likely to make such contributions to the improvement of program service

that it is worth disruptions and delays.

Aronson (1967)—The practitioner typically feels that research­

ers are more interested in research than in people. The research prac­

tice of control groups—where some students don't receive the

treatment—adds fuel to this perception.

Cohen (.1975)—Research may be quite valid in a scientific sense,

but it is ordinarily quite irrelevant to the practitioner. It is

focused on the questions university professors want to answer, rather

than on the decisions officials have to make.

Sarasson (1977)—The reality is that most service agencies (in

this case the IHE) are accustomed to taking from them who are willing

to give; while expecting the givers to be grateful for the opportunity

to participate.

Rankin (1980)—The major force which shapes the relationship

for the worse is the lack of involvement in the planning phase. The

relationship is viewed with suspicion and mistrust when the LEA is ex­

pected to implement a program with very little input into the initial

planning.

The preceding comments in no way exhaust the possibilities of

the varying perceptions between the IHE researcher and the LEA practi­

tioner. They represent only the tip of the iceberg.

Those who are closely connected with the organization and direc­

tion of educational research are distressed by the apparent disharmony

67

between researchers and practitioners. They recognize the threat to the

status and progress of educational research that this chasm represents.

Yates (1971) advocates that the lack of harmony between re­

searchers and practitioners must be regarded as would be a marital

conflict. If two partners fail to agree, experience and common sense

suggests that there are likely to be faults on both sides which must be

examined.

Service (1975) suggested that the conflict was symptomatic of

larger organizational questions. In the next section some of these

organizational features will be examined.

Recommendations for Increasing the Probability of Success in Collaborative Research Efforts

Included in this section are recommendations and models for

successful collaboratives by various experts and participants in the

field of interinstitutional relations. Examined are practical and

theoretical features that have been -verified empirically or experimen­

tally and found to be significant for developing successful collabora­

tive ventures.

PanKratz (1974) suggests that in any collaborative there are at

least three distinct groups—each with a unique role and function. He

terms these groups as the controllers of resources, the role groups,

and the task groups. By definition the "controllers" have the power to

make decisions which can give life to consortium or which can crush its

existence. The "role groups" (teachers, parents, students, etc.) are

affected by the decisions of the first group, but their voices are

68

vital to a truly shared decision-making effort. Lastly, there are the

"task groups" whose responsibility it is to plan and implement programs

agreed to by the collaborative decision-making bodies.

In order for collaboratives to work, PanKratz makes the fol­

lowing recommendations:

1. For collaboration to be functional, the controllers of resour­

ces must be willing to share their power by responding to input

from role groups.

2. Collaboration is more functional when the controllers of

resources from the various institutions in a consortium form a

shared decision-making body which operates separately from a

body comprised of representatives of significant role groups in

the consortium. For.collaboration, these two decision-making

bodies must agree.

3. For collaboration to be functional the purpose and limits of

the consortium must be clearly defined and agreed to by all

parties involved.

4. The commitment to shared decision-making by member institutions

in a consortium is directly related to the investment of its

own resources in the shared effort.

5. For collaboration to be functional, a process for input and

shared decision-making must be clearly defined and understood

by all role groups.

Figure 5 is the model used by PanKratz and associates to imple­

ment a successful collaborative relationship.

INPUT

SOURCES OF INPUT FOR DECISIONS

Proposal Individuals Role Groups

Council

DECISION

Council of Administrators for

Portal Schools (Superintendents and College Deans)

Set Policy and Control Resources

To Committee \ for Approval/ Modification/

To Council for Action & Allocation

f Resources

PLANNING

Allocat Allocate Resources for

Plannin for Progra

mplementation

Planning Task Group

To Decision-Making Groups

or Action

Master Steering Committee

(Representatives of Role Groups)

Monitors and Evalutes Programs

Implementation Task Group

DECISION Council of Mas ter Administra­ Steering

tors Committee

IMPLEMENTATION

EVALUATION

Allocate Resource for

mplementation

Implementation Task Groups

Progress Monitored and Approved by

Council Committee

Progress Monitored ana Approved by

Council I Committee

Figure 5. The Collaborative Decision-Making Process

70

Parsons (1956) suggests that no particular pattern of

interaction can simultaneously satisfy all the needs of all the indivi­

duals and groups in a system. Hence, when needs remain unsatisfied

they become tensions and sources of conflict. He suggests the forma­

tion of a normative arrangement within the system which establishes

accepted ways of behaving for the participants. This continuous accom­

modation and conflict avoidance is referred to by Parsons as "dynamic

equilibrium." To reach this state, Parsons makes reference to a number

of specific functional problems which he poses as essential for all

systems to resolve if they are to ensure their own continuance. The

problems to be resolved are:

1. The problems involved in a goal attainment. This poses a

means-end perspective and involved coordination of activities

toward the end which the system is manifestly designed to

serve.

2. The problems of adaptation to the external situation. This

includes meeting and manipulating the environment in order to

permit survival.

3. The problems of integration. This emphasizes the relations of

the components in the system with one another, such as accommo­

dating conflict in such a.way as to enable the system to

function and satisfy a requisite number of needs for the sys­

tem itself and its component subsystems so as to assure survi­

val.

71

4. The problems of pattern maintenance and tension management.

Pattern maintenance exists where an actor (or group) reconciles

the great variety of inconsistent demands and norms imposed

upon him (or the group) by his participation in the system with

those in other systems where he (or the group) is also a parti­

cipant.

Illustrated in Figure 6 are these four problems in a system

known as the Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System.

Serious conflicting demands made on a person or group may be

dysfunctional to person, group and system. Tension management is the

problem of maintaining a sufficient commitment on the part of the ac­

tors sufficient for their necessary fulfillment of their tasks.

Smith (1968) recommends following the subsequent organization­

al principles when planning collaborative efforts:

1. To organize in such a way that there is always a legitimate

route for the injection of new ideas from each party concerned.

This requires a flexibility in organization which suits local

situations, so that leadership can arise from various sources

and not be swamped by a system or a tradition.

2. To arrange the power structure in such a way that university

and school are responsible for that which is peculiarly in

their domains and bring to the partnership their special learn­

ings and concerns. Hopefully one may influence the other, but

one point of view should not wholly dominate what they do

jointly.

[A] [G]

Adaptation Goal

Attainment

[L] [I]

Pattern Maintenance

and Integration

Tension Management

Figure 6. Parsonian Paradigm of a Social System

73

3. To set up organizational structures which are viable enough as

institutions that they do not stand or fall on the strength of

one or two enthusiastic personalities, but can exist through

transitions caused by changes in specific personnel. So many

of the great experimental projects of the past, particularly

cooperative ones, fell by the wayside as soon as the key per-"

sons who were excited about a certain project moved on to other

vineyards.

4. To provide for a system of checks and balances of power to

prevent one power block from overwhelming all the others. When

genuine involvement of cooperating members ceases, then the

structure falls and with it the program.

5. To plan on a gradual emergence of inter-institutional structure

as individuals persuade others of need. Let the structure grow

naturally and uniquely rather than falling into the trap of

building a grandiose structure that does not fit and is, there­

fore, never used.

6. To insure that there are executive positions or officers desig­

nated in the structure whose duties are described and include

the right to carry out the decisions of policy making and pro­

gram planning groups. In the history of cooperation in educa­

tion, there are too many examples of joint advisory committees

which talked and talked, but never did anything.

Schermerhorn (1979) proposes a model for Interorganizational

Organization Development (IOD) which provides a framework for the nine

74

steps he proposes for developing a successful plan of action. Figure 7

shows his model. The nine steps Schermerhorn proposes are:

Step 1: Awareness and Mutual Trust Establishment—Boundary-

spanning representatives from potentially-cooperative organiza­

tions are made aware of one another, of one another's

organizations, and of the prospects of cooperative action.

These representatives come to know one another as "persons,"

and interpersonal trust and respect is established.

Step 2: Common Interest Identification—Boundary-spanners engage

one another in dialog that results in the exchange of informa­

tion on their organizations' goals. This information is pro­

cessed to identify points of potential common interest.

Step 3: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-

spanners engage other members of their respective organizations

in a cost-benefit evaluation of cooperative action in the areas

of common interest. The feasibility of cooperation is estab­

lished in terms of the given organization's needs, resources,

and operating realities.

Step 4: Program Planning and Design—Boundary-spanners engage one

another in dialog that results in prioritizing common interests,

establishing the feasibility of specific cooperative action

programs, and agreeing on tentative designs for the possible

programs.

Step 5: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-

spanners engage other members of their respective organizations

Decision making within

organizations

^ Evaluation Boundary' spanners

Figure 7. Key Elements in the IOD Action and Research Domain

in a cost-benefit evaluation of the proposed cooperative

action program(s).

Step 6: Program Implementation—Boundary-spanners and other sup­

porting resources are mobilized for action to implement one or

more of the cooperative programs.

Step 7: Inter-organizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-

spanners engage one another in evaluative dialog that results

in proposals for the constructive redesign of the cooperative

action program(s) over time.

Step 8: Intraorganizational Cost-Benefit Evaluation—Boundary-

spanners engage other members of their respective organizations

in a cost.-benef it evaluation of the ongoing program(s). Deci­

sions are made regarding continuing program participation and

support.

Step 9: Program Integration and Maintenance—Boundary-spanners

implement constructive changes in the cooperative program(s).

Steps 7-9 are engaged on a continual and recycling basis.

Carlson (1980) suggests "networking" to achieve successful

collaboration. He defines networking as

The bringing together of various elements into a combination of units, a whole, which works toward a purpose, shared by its members. The network, then, is a set of elements (peo­ple) which link at particular points or nodes (places at which elements connect and information is channeled)(page 14).

Carlson states further that networking provides another way to think

about bringing together, in an organized way, a "coterie" of people's

talent and expertise to address some needs or purpose. Listed in

Appendix C is Carlson's conceptual checklist for persons planning to

develop interinstitutional collaborations.

Dosher (1977), another proponent of networking, presents ten

guidelines for developing a network. They are as follows:

1. Develop a statement of purpose which is broad and generalizable

to the multiple values and expectations intrinsic to the mem­

bers or potential members of the network.

2. Know thyself sufficiently to know the need and the vision for

the network which will enable the development of plans to in­

clude long and short range goals, operational objectives and

measurable outcomes.

3. Face power issues openly, squarely and in a timely fashion.

Conflict is inevitable in contexts in which parties share dif­

ferent viewpoints over "ends" and "means" thus conflict re­

ducing strategies are needed.

4. Give priority to information processing since information is

the lifeblood of such systems. The exchange of information,

ideas, gains, and losses provide the necessary stimuli to keep

members' attention attuned to network efforts.

5. Identify, train and nurture leaders, for venture to succeed,

leadership is an important element. It is better to err on the

side of recruiting more persons of varying skills, knowledge,

and experience than to limit involvement to a clique of organi­

zational elitists.

78

6. Identify "boundary persons" who are knowledgeable about

organization development, group dynamics and interpersonal

communications and share their expertise at appropriate times

in the development of a network.

7. Conceptualize network as a learning system where all its mem­

bers take part in developing an understanding of the complexity

of creating new insights about the area in which all are taking

a part. A certain level of tolerance for ambiguity and un­

certainty is desirable as well as being flexible and open to

new knowledge.

8. Stress management, accountability, and responsibility for en­

suring strategies and to defend to others the merits of the

network.

9. Evaluate stringently in order to ensure to modify or change

strategies and to defend to others the merits of the network.

10. Celebrate and treasure payoffs which emerge from the coopera­

tive efforts and which bring new meaning to those involved.

In addition to these guidelines, Schon (1971) suggests the fol­

lowing roles which are essential to the design, creation, negotiation

and management of networks.

1. Systems negotiator—The ombudsman or guide who serves as the

vehicle by which others negotiate a difficult, isolated, rigid,

or fragmented system.

'Underground' manager—S/he maintains and operates informal,

underground networks. Through personal relationships, s/he

maintains a coherent operation—for example, across governmen­

tal agency lines—sometimes pursuing in this way functional

goals that have little or nothing to do with the formal poli­

cies of the agencies involved.

Manoeuvrer—S/he operates on a 'project' basis, and is able

through personal networks to persuade or coerce institutions

to make the shifts required to realize a project that cuts

across institutional lines. Real estate 'packagers,' or the

effective managers of a housing or renewal agency in virtually

any large city, stand as examples of the type.

Broker—In the literal, commercial sense a broker connects

buyers and sellers. S/he helps each to identify the other,

services as a channel for information (in principle, there

would be no need for brokers if information flow were perfect)

and makes 'deals' if s/he is able to convince buyer and seller

that each has something the other wants.

Often, s/he also serves to clear away the institutional,

regulatory and administrative debris which stands in the way

of transactions, performing these functions both because of

her/his superior knowledge of the necesary steps and because of

her/his willingness to cope with this level of detail.

Network manager—S/he oversees official networks of activities

and elements, assuring the flows of information, the processes

80

of referral, tracking and follow-up, and the provision

of resources required for the network to operate.

6. Facilitator—S/he attempts to foster the development and inter­

connection of regional enterprises, each of which constitutes

a variant of central themes of policy or function. Her/his

role is at once that of consultant, expediter, guide, and connec­

tor. S/he must provide, as well, the 'meta' functions of

training and consultation which enable regional operators to

establish and maintain their own networks.

The summation of this literature is stated well by Mangone

(1976).

Again and again the literature on . . . collaborative research has stressed the necessity of equal participation in a res­pectful relationship between the research associates in a com­mon enterprise and the avoidance of any hierarchical cast in which the . . . collaborators are merely used for the . . . data they can furnish the principal . . . investigator (page 44).

Summary

Interinstitutional collaboration is a subject which has

received considerable attention in the literature in the last 20 years.

It can be defined as any substantially joint activity in which two

agencies enter for mutual benefit. The key elements cited in the lit­

erature on interinstitutional collaboration are shared decision-making,

policy development, and financial control.

81

The primary focus of this literature review was the hindrances

to successful interinstitutional collaboration. Five types of hin­

drances were examined. Also included were historically successful

interinstitutional cooperatives between institutions of higher educa­

tion (IHE) and local education agencies (LEA) and the focus or organi­

zations.

Cited in the literature were seven traditional interinstitu­

tional cooperatives between the IHE and the LEA. These were preservice,

student teaching, administrative internship, continuing education, part

time or guest lecturers, inservice activities, and consultant services.

A brief history and description were included for each type of coopera­

tive.

In section two the focus of the review was the purposes and

commonalities among organizations. Jive types of organizational rela­

tionships—accidental; parasitic; one-way; mutualistic; and trancen-

dental—were identified. The implications were that the latter two

types were the most heneficial in inter-organizational collaboration.

In section three theoretical hindrances to interinstitutional

collaborations were examined. The theoretical constructs of Lewin,

Schermerhorn, Getzels and Guba, Parsons and Merton can all be summar­

ized with the following statements as they apply to interinstitutional

collaboration. For members of any given system individually or col­

lectively what may be functional for one may not be functional for

82

another. The need for initial steps to clarify roles and expectations

in order to enhance the chance for mutual satisfaction is imperative.

The fourth and fifth sections dealt with literature on the

topic of institutional hindrances to research in the IHE and LEA res­

pectively. What was revealed is that both institutions have policies

and practices within their respective organizations which seriously in­

hibit the production of research not only cooperatively but singularly

as well.

Sociological hindrances to interinstitutional collaboration

were discussed in section six. The literature indicates that the dif­

ferences between the IHE and LEA are likened to those of two different

subcultures. Twelve subcultural differences were examined. These

differences were in the areas of policy making, the role of the written

word, daily activities, attitudes toward cooperation, expenditure of

funds, research and development, personnel matters, relative status,

personal commitment to the organization, educational, political, and

social views. It was suggested that these differences have provided

a serious point of friction between the IHE and LEA.

Section seven was focused on the perceptions of the research

relationship between the IHE and LEA from the perspective of members

of the two institutions. The most prevalent perception was that the

one did not understand nor try to understand the other.

Discussed in the final section were theoretical and practical

recommendations for successful collaboratives. The literature in

this section was summed up with the statement by Mangone (1976)

Again and again the literature on . . . collaborative research has the necessity of equal partnership in a respectful rela­tionship . . .(page 44).

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Introduction

This study was a descriptive study in that the major purpose

was to ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in

the research relationship between Institutions of Higher Education

(IHE) and Local Educational Agencies (LEA) from the perspective of

four groups of respondents. The perspectives were measured by a

researcher-designed questionnaire which focused on the "reality" (how

it is) and "expectation" (how it should be) of the research relation­

ship. The dependent variables were the responses to the 28 problems

and issues statements and free responses items on the questionnaire.

The independent variables were reality, expectation, and group member­

ship.

This chapter delineates the research procedures followed in

conducting the study. It includes: 1) the sample selection process,

2) a description of the instruments used to collect the data, 3) the

procedures for collecting the data, 4) the method of analysis, and

5) a summary of the chapter.

84

85

Sample

For the purposes of this study three populations were sampled.

Population One: Directors of Research and Evaluation departments in

local education agencies in large cities (DRE).

Step 1: An organized group of research and evaluation directors in

school systems with a student enrollment of 45,000 or more was

identified through their affiliation with the American Educa­

tional Research Association (AREA). The American Educational

Research Association is an organization of professionals whose

emphasis is research in the field of education.

Step 2: The chairperson of the Large City Directors of Research

and Evaluation was contacted and asked to provide the researcher

with the names and school district addresses of the members.

Ninety-nine LEAs were represented by the DRE membership.

Step 3: All 99 DREs and their respective LEAs were selected from

this membership list. The membership included representation

from the United States and Canada.

Population Two: Members of AREA: Division H

Division H is comprised of individuals who have an interest in school

evaluation and program development.

Step 4: The Subgroups within Division H were identified by the

chairperson of the Division. Comprising these subgroups were

personnel from the following types of organizations:

86

1. Local Education Agency (LEA)

2. Institution of Higher Education (IHE)

3. Research Development and Evaluation Lab (RDE)

4. State Education Agency (SEA)

5. Other (includes private, non-profit organizations, con­

sultants, retirees)

Step 5: Three persons from each of these types of organizations

were contacted by telephone and asked if they could respond

to a questionnaire concerning the research relationship be­

tween universities and school districts. All responses were

positive. Consequently, five subgroups were included in the

populations to be sampled. However, for the purposes of this

study only IHE and LEA respondents were included in the

statistical analyses. The membership included representation

from the United States, Canada and Guam.

Population Three: Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE)

Step 6: A copy of the mailing list of the Association of Colleges

and School of Education in State Universities and Land Grant

Colleges was obtained from a southwestern university.

Step 7: Forty colleges of education, that were within a 25 mile

radius of a school district with a student enrollment in ex­

cess of 24,000, were selected from the mailing list. The

Deans of these 40 colleges were included in the sample.

87

Description of the Instruments

To collect the data for this study two questionnaires were

developed by the researcher. The purpose of the instruments was to

obtain demographic data, survey personnel from various organizations on

their perceptions of research and evaluation relationships between the

IHE and LEA, and obtain information on how to improve and expand those

relationships for the benefit of both groups.

Questionnaire #1 (Appendix A) was designed for members of

AREA: Division H and DREs.

Step 1: The Questionnaire was designed using information from a

literature review, a Division H task force on "Fostering

Fruitful Relationships Between IHEs and LEAs,"and past papers

of AREA conferences.

Step 2: A working copy of the questionnaire was mailed to 15

researchers who represented the five subgroups of Division H

and the DRE group.

Step 3: When the working copies were returned the remarks were

used to construct a second draft of the questionnaire.

Step 4: The second draft was returned to the same 15 individuals.

Comments on the second draft were recorded by phone conversa­

tion and used to prepare the third and final draft.

Step 5: The final draft was piloted and approved by five univer­

sity faculty members, five school based research and evaluation

personnel, and one member from each of the remaining three

Division H Subgroups.

Questionnaire #2 (Appendix B) was designed to survey Deans of

Colleges of Education.

Step 6: This second questionnaire was developed by modifying

(deleting, rewording, and adding) the first questionnaire.

Step 7: The questionnaire was piloted and approved by four

Associate Deans of Colleges of Education.

Procedures for Collecting the Data

(Directors of Research and Evaluation)

Step 1: A questionnaire package was mailed to each of the 99

Large City DREs. The package contained:

One copy of questionnaire #1

One introductory letter

One subject consent form

One stamped return envelope

Step 2: Although the respondents were guaranteed confidentiality,

the returns were coded to identify when respondents had re­

turned the questionnaire. If there was no response by the end

of three weeks a second package was mailed to the non-

respondents.

Step 3: If there was no response to the second mailing after two

additional weeks, a follow-up telephone call was made. The

call was made to 10 non-respondents (10% of the original

sample) to determine the reasons for non-response.

(IHE and LEA members of AERA: Division H)

Step 4: The chairperson of Division H was contacted for the

purpose of determining the most expedient and cost effective

method of sampling the membership. It was determined that the

questionnaire could be included as part of the Division

Newsletter.

Step 5: An article was written in the October 1979 newsletter

describing the study and asking for membership participation.

Step 6: Two days before the scheduled mailing 50% of the news­

letters were randomly selected for inclusion of the question­

naire. Thus approximately 1000 Division H members were mailed

questionnaires. Because the questionnaire was mailed using

the bulk mailing system no follow-up could be done. It was

not known how many of the members actually received the

ques tionnaire.

(Deans of Colleges of Educations)

Step 7: A questionnaire package was mailed to each of the

selected Deans of Colleges of Education. The package included

One introductory letter

One copy of questionnaire it2

Two copies of questionnaire #1

One stamped return envelope

There was no second mailing.

90

Step 8: In order to determine the reasons for non-response, ten

percent of the original sample, who had not responded, were

contacted by telephone.

Method of Analysis

The purpose of this section is to describe the methods used to

analyze the data that were yielded by the questionnaire survey. The

questionnaires used in this study were designed to enable the re­

searcher to examine three aspects of the research relationship between

the IHE and the LEA. Sections of both questionnaires were used to col­

lect demographic data and free responses on questions pertaining to

problems and issues encountered in the research relationship between

the IHE and the LEA. In addition the questionnaire sent to DRE, LEA

and IHE respondents was focused on the reality and expectation of

research relationship as perceived by the three groups.

Demographic Data (census and organizational)

The descriptive method used to display the qualitative data

yielded by the census and organization sections of the questionnaire

was the crosstabulation. This method was chosen because it allows

accurate and clear communication of the nature of the data so that

the sample of subjects is described properly. The data were compiled,

displayed, and compared in order to develop a composite picture of

the respondents and the organizations which they respectively repre­

sented.

91

Perceptions of the "Reality" and "Expectation of the Research Relationship"

The procedures which were used to implement the design and test

three of the four null hypotheses are summarized in the following

organizational charts.

Null hypothesis 1 was concerned with the perceptions of three

groups of respondents, Directors of Research & Evaluation (DRE), Local

Education Agency Research personnel (LEA), and Institution of Higher

Education faculty (IHE), on the "reality" of the research relation­

ship. The procedures for testing this hypothesis are shown in Figure

8 .

Procedures for testing null hypothesis 2 are shown in Figure

9. This hypothesis was concerned with the respondents perspective

of the "expectation" of the research relationship.

The differences between "reality" and "expectation" as per­

ceived by the three groups were the focus of null hypothesis 3. The

procedures for testing are depicted in Figure 10.

Hypothesis 4 dealt with three free response items answered by

DRE, LEA, IHE, and DCE respondents. To test the hypotheses, it was

divided into null hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c.

Null hypothesis 4a was concerned with the respondents per­

ceptions of the benefits derived from collaborative research.

The focus of null hypothesis 4b was the complaints regarding

collaborative research between the IHE and LEA.

Conducted a one-way ANOVA for each of the 28 dependent variables on the "reality" of the Research Relationship.

Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for each variable on "how it is."

1 F-I F-value significant for hypothesis 1 at the .05 level? ; ?

Conducted a Tukey HSD Procedure to see among which groups dif­ferences in perception of "reality" existed.

Reported results of Tukey-HSD.

Reported no signif­icant difference.

Figure 8. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 1

93

Conducted a one-way ANOVA for each of the 28 dependent variables on the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship.

Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for each variable under "how is should be."

• F-value significant for hypothesis 2 at the .05 level?;

Yes No

Conducted a Tukey HSD Reported no significant procedure to determine difference. which groups differ from each other on their perceptions of "expectation."

Reported results of Tukey-HSD.

Figure 9. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 2

Conducted a two-way ANOVA for the differences between the "reality" and "expectation" of the research rela­tionship for each of the 28 variables

Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio, the significance of F for trials, and the interaction effect.

*\ Is F-value significant for interaction (group by ? trials at the .05 level?

Conducted a one-way ANOVA for discrepancy scores on "Reality" minus "Expecta­tion" for each group.

Calculated df, ss, ms, F-ratio and significance of F for differences.

Is F-value significant J at .05 level?

Examined F-Value for trials (main effect).

*\ Is F-value for main effect significant at .01 level?

Examined trials' means to determine if R < E or R > E for groups com­bined .

Reported results

Reported R » E for all three groups.

Examined confidence inter­vals to determine if R = E for each group separately.

Conducted a Tukey HSD test to determine which groups were significantly different in their perceptions of reality vs. expectation.

Report no significant difference.

Reported results of Tukey-HSD: R > E, E > R, or E • R.

Figure 10. Procedure for Testing Null Hypothesis 3 /

95

Null hypothesis 4c dealt with the respondents' suggestions

for improvement of research relationships.

The tests of significance were three separate chi squares.

Selecting the Chi Square Categories

The categories used in the chi squares were developed by using

the responses of the Deans of Colleges of Education as a basis of

organization. Each response was read and placed in a category.

Another rater was asked to place the DCE responses into the

chosen categories. Inter-rater reliability was established with the

Spearman rank correlation coefficient. After three category changes

the correlation was .72.

These categories were then used to sort the responses of other

respondents. Similar responses of less than three were eliminated from

the analyses. Categories with an expected cell frequency of less

than five were collapsed. The result was one four by five and two

four by four Chi Squares.

The decision rule was that each hypothesis would be tested at

the .05 level of significance.

Rationale for the Selection of ANOVA

Analysis of variance is a statistical technique used to

determine whether several populations have the same mean. The null

hypothesis in analysis of variance proposes that the population means

are equal. The null hypothesis is tested by examining the variation

among sample means in comparison with variation within several samples

96

(Dinham 1976). This study was designed to examine variety in human

perceptions. Since ANOVA is based on statistical comparison of varia­

tion between groups and variation within groups, it was selected as the

appropriate statistic to use.

One-way ANOVA was selected for hypotheses 1 and 2 because it is

appropriate to use when three or more categories of one independent

variable are compared. Two-way ANOYA was selected for hypothesis 3

because it is appropriate to use to test null hypotheses when two in­

dependent variables are used. Two-way ANOYA also tests the interaction

of the two independent variahles. Hypothesis was tested by a two-way

ANOVA.

Decision to use Parametric Statistics

When the data are not strong interval data, non-parametric

tests are often used. An examination of the appropriate non-parametric

statistics indicated the following procedure:

1) the data were initially treated as interval

2) an assumption of no ties was made

3) the data were then treated as non-interval.

Since the ANOVA assumptions could be met as readily as the non-

parametric assumptions, the more powerful ANOVA was statistic of choice.

Empirical evidence exists which shows that slight deviations in meeting

the parametric assumptions does not have radical effects on the ob­

tained probability figure (.Seigel 1956).

97

Rationale for Selecting the Tukey HSD Procedure

The rejection of a null hypothesis is not an overwhelmingly

insightful or interesting result. Once some difference has been found,

some further analysis is warranted to determine just which population

means differ. In ANOVA when a null hypothesis is rejected, a multiple

comparison (post hoc) test is used to search for the exact source of

the population differences that produce the significant F statistic

(Dinham 1976). For the purposes of this study, the Tukey HSD procedure

was chosen. The HSD controls Type 1 error at a given level for the to­

tal experiment. There is no compounding of Type 1 error with each com­

parison as with multiple t tests, no matter how many pairs of means are

compared. This test was only a follow-up to hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 be­

cause a multiple comparison procedure is usually conducted in conjunc­

tion with ANOVA.

Rationale for Selection of the Chi Square

The data yielded by the free response section of the question­

naire was qualitative. When the data are of this type, distribution

free statistical methods are most frequently used. The chi square is

such a method. Chi square procedures apply to data that are frequency

counts for categories defined by the independent variable (usually group

membership) and the dependent variable (responses of subjects). The

null hypothesis tested in chi square is a hypothesis proposing the in­

dependence of the independent variable and the dependent variable (Dinham

1976). Since the chi square requirement of independent cell frequencies

was met, Chi square was the statistic of choice for hypothesis 4.

98

Summary

Participants in this study included four groups of respondents

in a nationwide survey. The four groups were professional staff from

Local Education Agencies (LEAS) and Institutions of Higher Education

(IHES) and administrative staff from Local Education Agencies (DRES) and

Institutions of Higher Education (DCES)•

The populations were surveyed using a researcher designed ques­

tionnaire. The primary purpose of the questionnaire was to survey the

extent and nature of the problems encountered in the research relation­

ship between the Institutions of Higher Education and the Local Educa­

tion Agencies.

Four null hypotheses were tested in this study. To test the hy­

potheses the data were analyzed using the following statistical tests:

Null Hypothesis 1 was tested by a one-way ANOVA

Null Hypothesis 2 was tested by a one-way ANOVA

Null Hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way ANOVA

Null Hypothesis 4 was tested by Chi Squares

The level of significance was .05. Where significance for each

test was found in hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 a Tukey HSD procedure was con­

ducted to determine the source of the differences.

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OP THE DATA

This chapter includes the presentation and analysis of the

response rate, census and organizational data, and the hypotheses tested.

The statistical analyses of the hypotheses were calculated by the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie et al. 1975).

Except where noted the .05 level of significance was used to test the

null hypotheses.

Response Rate

The total sample for this study was 275 respondents. Geograph­

ically the respondents represented 43 states, Washington, D.C., Canada,

and Guam. The states not represented were Idaho, Maine, Montana,

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Washington. Compiled in Table

3 is the response rate of the surveyed groups—Directors of Research

and Evaluation (DRE) (71%), Local Education Agency Staff (LEA) and

Institutions of Higher Education faculty (IHE) chosen from Division H

of AERA (24%), and Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE) (60%).

In order to determine the reasons for non-response, ten percent

of the original sample who had not responded were randomly selected for

a telephone interview. Table 4 is a summarization of these responses.

The most frequently mentioned hindrance was the length of the question­

naire.

99

100

Table 3. Number of Questionnaires Sent and Percentage of Returns by Group Membership

# of Category

questionnaires sent

§ returned after 1st mailing

# returned after 2nd mailing Total

% age of returns

DRE 99 43 27 **

70 71

LEA Division H

IHE 1000

59 no 2nd mailing

181— 24

DCE 40 24 no 2nd mailing

TOTAL

24

275

60

**Three DRE respondents answered only the free response items. Their questionnaires were not calculated in the statistical analysis (N=67)

—19 responses from RDE, 12 from SEA, and 24 from other are not included in this analysis, but are included in total response rate from Division H.

101

Table 4. Number of DCE and DRE Respondents Giving Each Reason for Non-Return of Questionnaire

Curtailment of outside No cooperative Questionnaire Not Row

Category research projects Too Lengthy Interested Total

DRE 3 2

DCE

Total 3 2

4 1 10

2 2 4

6 3 14

Census Data

The subsequent information provides a composite picture of the

respondents in this study. Presented in Table 5 are the gender, ethnic­

ity, and educational level of the respondents by group membership. An

analysis of these data indicated that the most respondents were Anglo

(all others) males with an earned Doctorate. Over 76% of the respon­

dents were male. Of the 64 female respondents approximately 51% were

employed by an IHE. Eighty-four percent of the respondents have Doc­

torates, 13 percent have a Masters Degree only and one percent have a

Bachelors Degree only. Of all Doctorates 24 percent were DREs, 11% LEA

staff, and 59% IHE personnel.

The results of the analysis by ethnicity closely corresponds to

the American Educational Research Association Membership as reported in

1979 Annual Report. Ninety-four percent of all respondents were Anglo,

three percent Asian American, two percent Black American and less than

one percent Hispanic. There were no Native American respondents. Mi­

norities constituted six percent of the total IHE membership and 11% of

the combined DRE and LEA membership.

Presented in Table 6 is a compilation of student enrollment data.

The majority (48%) of the IHE (including DCE) respondents are employed

in schools with a population which ranges from 10,000-24,999. Twenty-

nine percent work within institutions with a population range of 25,000-

44,999. Fifteen percent and eight percent respectively work in schools

with population below 10,000 or above 45,000. Ninety-seven percent of

DRE respondents are administrators in schools where student enrollment

103

Table 5. Number of Respondents in Each Group by Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Level

Category DRE . LEA IHE DCE Row Total

Male 57 44 89 21 211

Female 13 15 33 3 64

Native American — — — ~

Black American 2 1 3 2 8

Asian American 3 — 3 1 7

Hispanic 1 1 — — 2

All Others 59 56 114 21 250

Total Responses 275

104

Table 6. Number of Respondents in Each Student Enrollment Category

Below 10,000- 25,000- Above Category 10,000 24,000 44,999 45,000 Total

DRE — — 2 68 70

LEA 12 20 9 17 58

IHE 18 59 32 10 119

DCE 4 10 9 1 24

Totals 34 89 52 96 *271

*Four respondents did not complete this question.

105

is above 45,000. Most LEA respondents (64%) were from school districts

with student enrollments in the 10,000-24,999 or above 45,000 range.

Organizational Data

The information in this section was included to illustrate how

the agencies are structured to carry out collaborative research. The

data presented in Table 7 show that 70% of the respondents from a Local

Education Agency have a centralized research and evaluation unit. Fur­

ther analysis indicates that most of these units (42%) have been in

existence between 10 and 15 years. A study conducted by the Center for

the Study of Evaluation found similarly that most Research and Evalua­

tion offices were established after 1965 (Lyons 1979). A corresponding

question to respondents from institutions of higher education was "Do

you have a coordinating research office (CRO)?" The responses are tabu­

lated in Table 8. Approximately 72% responded affirmatively. The most

prevalent type of CRO is at the university level. However, 36% did re­

port having a college level CRO. Table 9 summarizes the responses from

the Deans of Colleges of Education to the inquiry regarding a college

level research policy. The responses were approximately equal in both

the yes and no category.

The data in Tables 10 and 11 are presented to show who requests

assistance from whom in collaborative research projects. The analysis

indicated that when research assistance is requested, all three groups--

LEA, DRE, and IHE—request assistance from the IHE more frequently than

they request assistance from other sources. Requests to the IHE for

assistance represented 35% of the total requests. From the perspective

106

Table 7. Number of LEA and DRE Responses to Questions Regarding a Central Research and Evaluation Unit

Centralized Research and Evaluation Unit If yes, how long in existence

Less than 1-5 5-10 More than Totals Category No Yes one year years years 10 years By Row

DRE ' 7 63 1 9 23 30 63

LEA 20 39 5 8 13 13 39

Totals by Column 27 102 5 17 35 43 102

107

Table 8. Number of IHE and DCE Responses to Questions Regarding Coordinating Research Offices

Category

Coordinating Research Office

No Yes

If yes, what

Department Level

ft* type

College Level

University Level

Totals by Row

IHE

00 o

cn

15 - 44 59 118

DCE 8 16 4 8 11 23

Totals by Column 38 100 19 52 70 141

**May respond in more than one category.

108

Table 9. Number of DCE Responses to the Question-<-"Does College of Education Have a Research Policy?"

Yes No

13 11

109

Table 10. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question^—"From whom do you request assistance in a cooperative research project?"

DRE LEA IHE Row Totals

Row Percent

Requests to LEA 9 4 18 31 8

Requests to SEA 15 8 22 45 12

Requests to IHE 49 . 31 51 131 35

Requests to RD & E 21 13 17 51 14

Requests to Consultant 30 19 32 81 22

Requests to Other Sources 6 1 5 12 3

No Cooperative Projects 4 5 10 19 5

Total Respondents 187 134 81 155 370 100

110

Table 11. Number and Percentage of Persons by Group Membership Responding to the Question—"Who requests assistance from you in a cooperative research project?"

DRE LEA IHE Row Row Totals Percent

Requests from LEA 18 12 57 87 16

Requests from SEA 32 14 41 87 16

Requests from IHE 81 36 71 188 35

Requests from RD & E 30 10 26 66 12

Requests from Consultant 26 10 26 62 11

Requests from Other Sources 10 6 17 33 6

No Cooperative Projects 4 7 7 18 3

Total Respondents 199 201 95 245 541 100

Ill

of the Local Education Agency respondents (DRE and LEA) requests to

the IHE for assistance (37%) and from the IHE for assistance (39%) are

approximately equal. The data from the IHE respondents suggest that

only 12% of the time when assistance is needed is it requested from the

LEA. However, 23% of the requests for assistance from outside agencies

come from the LEA. The data indicate that the IHE respondents tend to

utilize assistance from other IHEs more frequently than they do any

other source.

Null Hypothesis I

This hypothesis was stated as follows:

There are no differences among the perceptions of the IHE, DRE,

and LEA respondents on the "reality" of the research relationship be­

tween the IHE and the LEA.

Presentation of the Data

Hypothesis I was tested by a one-way ANOVA. The independent

variable was group membership. The "reality" (How It Is) scores on each

of the 28 Problems and Issues Statements served as the dependent vari­

ables. The F-values were calculated for each of the 28 dependent

variables. The seven dependent variables which were found not to be

significant are listed in Table 12. Those 21 dependent variables which

were found to be significant are shown in Table 13. The 21 dependent

variables on which there were significant differences in perception

among the groups were then tested by the Tukey HSD to determine between

which groups there were differences.

112

Table 12. P Values of the Dependent Variables in Which There Were Not Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of Research Relationship

Variable P--Value

#29 Expectations are clearly defined. .12

#30 Policies and Procedures are clearly defined. .07

#35 Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."

.58

#36 Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority.

.30

#41 Research conducted by the LEA is of value to the IHE. .59

#46 Cooperative Data basis have been developed. .17

#48 Information is shared concerning ongoing research activities.

.20

P = .05

113

Table 13. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences among the Respondents on the Perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relation­ship

Variable P-Value

#27 There is early, cooperative involvement of both groups in planning the research effort. .01

#28 Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort .04

#31 Roles are clearly defined. .02

#32 Responsibilities are clearly defined. .009

#33 Funding agencies encourage collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources. .009

#34 Monies are allocated to research on fostering cooperative relations. .000

#37 University research is based on LEA needs. .000

#38 University research is based on university needs. .006

#39 University research is based on joint needs. .000

#40 Research conducted by university is of value to LEA. .000

#42 A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others. .001

#43 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research. .000

#44 LEA Data Base Information is available. .001

114

Table 13.—Continued

Variable P-Value

#45 University Data' Base Information is available. .003

#47 Knowledge and resources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems. .01

#49 There is a designated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests. .000

#50 Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects. .0253

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

#51 The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance. .0370

#52 Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships. .0003

#53 Personnel Exchange where LEA and university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time. .0001

#54 Solicited Cooperatives where university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing. .0032

P = .05

115

Analysis of the Data

The calculated F-values for perceptions pf "reality" among IHE,

DRE, and LEA respondents were not significant at the .05 level for vari­

ables 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 46, and 48. Based on these results Null Hypo­

thesis I was retained for those variables. The calcualted F-values for

perceptions of "reality" among the respondents were significant for

variables 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47,

49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. Based on these results, Null Hypothesis I was

rejected for those variables.

By looking at the Tukey-HSD results and calculating percentages

of occurrence the following was indicated. Forty percent of the time

significant differences in perceptions were between the IHE and LEA

respondents. Twenty percent of the time the perceptions of "reality"

differed between the DRE and LEA respondents. The IHE and DRE respon­

dents differed in perception 40% of the time.

Null Hypothesis 2

This hypothesis was stated as follows:

There are no differences among the perceptions of the IHE, DRE,

and LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relationship

between the IHE and the LEA.

Presentation of the Data

Hypothesis 2 was tested by a one-way ANOVA. Group membership

was the independent variable. The "expectation" (How It Should Be)

responses to each of the 28 Problems and Issues statements were the

responses to each of the 28 Problems and Issues statements were the

dependent variables. The significance levels of F were calculated for

each of the 28 dependent variables. Twenty of the 28 variables were

not significant at the .05 level. The variables and the P-values are

depicted in Table 14. The eight variables on which there were signifi­

cant differences in the perception of the respondents on the "expecta­

tion" of the research relationships are listed in Table 15.

The Tukey-HSD was used as a follow-up procedure to determine

which respondents differed in their perceptions.

Analysis of the Data

The calculated F-values on the perceptions of the "exepctation"

of the research relationship were not significant at the .05 level for

20 of the 28 dependent variables. This indicates that the perceptions

did not differ significantly among the three groups of respondents.

Those variables which were not significant were 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 53, and 54. For these

20 dependent variables Null Hypothesis 2 was retained. For dependent

variables 28, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, and 52, the calculated F-values

were significant. The DRE, LEA, and IHE respondents differed signifi­

cantly in their perceptions of the "expectation" of the research

relationship between the LEA and the IHE. For those eight dependent

variables Null Hypothesis 2 was rejected.

The Tukey-HSD analysis indicated that the significant differences

in perception were primarily between the DRE and LHE respondents (80%).

117

Table 14. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Not Significant Differences in the Perceptions of the "Expectation" of Research Relationships

Variable P-Value

#27 There is early cooperative involvement of both groups in planning the research effort. .62

#29 Expectations are clearly defined. .84

#30 Policies and procedures are clearly defined. .41

#31 Roles are clearly defined. .31

#32 Responsibilities are clearly defined. .52

#33 Funding agencies encourage collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources. .22

#34 Monies are allocated to research on fostering cooperative relations. .79

#35 Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collabora­tive University/LEA Effort." .73

#36 Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and main­tain it as an editorial priority. .74

#38 University research is based on university needs. .42

#39 University research is based on joint needs. .27

#40 Research conducted by university is of value to LEA. .67

118

Table 14.—Continued

Variable P-Value

#41 Research conducted by LEA is of value to the.university. .99

#42 A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others. .52

#44 LEA Data Base Information is available. .25

#47 Knowledge and resources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems. .40

#50 Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects. .36

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

#51 The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance. .41

#53 Personnel Exchange where LEA and university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time. .12

#54 Solicited Cooperatives where university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing. .84

P = .05

119

Table 15. P Values of the Dependent Variables on Which There Were Significant Differences in Perceptions among the Respondents on the Expectation of the Research Rela­tionship

Variable P-Value

#28 Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort. .04

#37 University research is based on LEA needs. .004

#43 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research. .001

#45 University Data Base Information is available. .008

#46 Cooperative Data Bases have been developed. .002

#48 Information is shared concerning ongoing activities. .04

#49 There is a designated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests. .004

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

#52 Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships. .02

P = .05

120

Perceptual differences between the IHE and LEA, and the DRE and LEA

respondents represented ten percent each.

Null Hypothesis 3

This hypothesis was stated as follows:

The differences between the "reality" and "expectation" of the

research relationship are not different among the respondents from the

LEA, IHE, or DRE populations.

Presentation of the Data

Hypothesis 3 was tested by a two-way ANOVA. The independent

variables were "reality" and "expectation" and group membership. The

dependent variables were the 28 responses on the "How It Is" (Tiral one)

and the 28 responses on the "How It Should Be" (Trial two) sections

of the Problems and Issues statements. F-values were calculated for

the between (groups), within (trials) and the interaction (groups by

trials) for each of the dependent variables. Illustrated in Table 16

are the cumulative results of the data analysis for three hypotheses

tested. This table corresponds to the procedures in F.igures8, 9, and

10. Summarized in column one of Table 16 are the results of the Tukey-

HSD for the "reality" variable. In column two in Table 16 these

results are summarized. In column three of Table 16 are the summarized

results of the calculations of the interaction of "reality" and

"expectation" by group membership. A "yes" in column three indicates

that the interaction lines were parallel, therefore, there was no

significant interaction. If the lines were not parallel, this

Table 16. Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3

Variable

1 R

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on vhich there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship

2 E

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship

Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by exam­ining if the Slopes are Parallel

4 R = E

Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA

5 R « E

Report of the confidence inter­vals from signif­icant differences between R & E for each group separ­ately

6 R » E

Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were significant differences in the differences in perception between Reality & Expectation

27. There is early, co­operative involve­ment of both groups in planning the

research effort*

28. Decisionmaking and power is shared equally by the resource control­lers and those affected by the effort.

LEA PRE I HE (1, 2, 3) E > R

LEA PRE IHE

LEA PRE IHE PRE LEA IHE

The following are clearly defined:

29. Expectations

30« Policies and procedures

31. Roles

32. Responsibilities

33. Funding agencies encourage colla­borative research efforts through the allocation of resources.

NSD

NSD

LEA IHE DRE

LEA LEA IHE DRE

LEA

DRE

LEA DRE IHE IHE

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

NSD

YES

YES

YES

NO

YES

E > R

E > R

E > R

E > R

<1, 2, 3) E > R

PRE IHE LEA

Table 16.—Continued.

Variable

1 R

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship

2 E

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship

Report of the interaction effect in 2-vay ANOVA by exam­ining if the Slopes are Parallel

U R = E

Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA

5 R - E

Report of the confidence inter­vals from signif­icant differences between R & E for each group separ­ately

6 R « E

Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were signif­icant differences

in the differences in perception be­tween Reality & Expectation

34. Monies are allo­cated to research on fostering coop­erative relations.

LEA 1HE DRE (1, 2, 3) E > R

DRE IHE LEA

35. Division H awards program includes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."

36. Research journals are encouraged to develop special issues on this subject of Univer­sity/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial prior­ity.

NSD

E > R

37. University research is based on LEA needs.

DRE LEA IHE IHE LEA DRE NO (1, 2, 3) E > R

IHE LEA DRE

38. University research is based on univer­sity needs.

IHE LEA DRE NSD NO - 1) E > R 2) E > R 3) E = R

DRE LEA IHE University research is based on univer­sity needs.

1) E > R 2) E > R 3) E = R

Table 16.—Continued.

Variable

1 R

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship

2 E

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship

Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by exam­ining if the Slopes are Parallel

4 R = E

Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA

5 R = E

Report of the confidence inter­vals from signif­icant differences between R & E for each group separ­ately

6 R » E

Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were signif­icant differences

in the differences of perception be­tween Reality & Expectation

39. University research is based on joint needs.

LEA DRE IHE NSD NO (1, 2, 3) E > R

IHE LEA DRE

40. Research conducted by university is of value to LEA.

DRE LEA IHE NSD NO ~ (1, 2, 3) E > R

IHE LEA DRE

41. Research conducted by LEA is of value to university.

NSD NSD YES E > R —

"

42. A compilation of LEA research needs is available to university and others.

IHE LEA DRE NSD NO (1, 2, 3) ' E > R

DRE LEA IHE

43. LEA has a policy/ procedure for out-of-district research.

IHE LEA DRE IHE LEA DRE NO - (1, 2, 3) DRE LEA IHE LEA has a policy/ procedure for out-of-district research.

44. LEA Data Base Infor­mation is available.

IHE LEA DRE NSD NO - <1, 2, 3) DRE LEA IHE LEA Data Base Infor­mation is available. E > R

45. University Data Base Information is available.

DRE LEA IHE DRE LEA IHE YES E > R _ University Data Base Information is available.

46. Cooperative Data Bases have been developed.

NSD DRE LEA IHE YES E > R - -

Table 16- Summarization of Tukey HSD Results for R, E, R - E, Significant Interactions, Trial Means and Confidence Intervals for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3

4 R = E

5 R = E

6 R « E

Variable Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the "Reality" of the Research Relationship

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship

Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by exam­ining if the Slopes are Parallel

Report of the combined.trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA

Report of the confidence inter­vals from signif­icant differences between R & E for each group separ­ately

Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the differences in perception be­tween Reality & Expectation

47. Knowledge and re­sources have been pooled in an attempt to solve metro­politan educational problems*

PRE LEA IHE YES

48. Information is shared concerning ongoing activities.

49. There is a desig­nated person(s) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests*

50. Human subject form(s) is required for appropriate research projects.

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

51. The Consortium or formal relationship between partici­pating organizations with specific guide­lines established in advance.

NSD

IHE LEA PRE

LEA DRE IHE

PRE LEA IHE

IHE LEA DRE (1, 2, 3) E > R

DRE LEA IHE

NSD

LEA DRE IHE (1, 2, 3) E > R

IHE DRE LEA

to 4S

Table 16.—Continued.

Variable

1 R

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Reality" of the Research Relationship

2 E

Results of the Tukey HSD for the variables on which there were signif­icant differences in the perceptions of the "Expectation" of the Research Relationship

Report of the interaction effect in 2-way ANOVA by exam­ining if the Slopes are Parallel

4 R » E

Report of the combined trial means for R & E for all three groups in the 2-way ANOVA

5 R » E

Report of the confidence inter­vals from signif­icant differences between R & E for each group separ­ately

6 R - E

Results of the Tukey HSD for variables on which there were signif­icant differences

in the differences

in perception be­tween Reality & Expectation

52. Informal Relation­ships resulting from personal

relationships.

53. Personnel Exchange where LEA and uni­versity personnel are shared or ex­changed for periods of time.

LEA PRE IHE

LEA PRE IHE

PRE LEA IHE 1) E - R 2) E > R 3) E - R

IHE PRE LEA

(1, 2, 3) IHE PRE LEA E > R

54. Solicited Coopera­tives where univer­sity and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.

LEA PRE IHE NSD (1, 2, 3) IHE PRE LEA E > R

a • .05; (1, 2, 3) = (PRE, LEA, IHE); NO - Significant Differences in Perceptions; YES - No Significant Pifference in Perception; E « Expectation of the Research Relationship; R = Reality of the Research Relationship; NSD - No Significant Pifference; Pifferent From

Is Not Significantly

126

indicated that there was significant interaction and "no" was entered

in column three.

When the interaction was not significant, the follow-up proce­

dure was to examine the F-value for the within group (trials) calculation.

The examination summary is depicted in column four of Table 16. The

level of significance for trials was set at .01. When the calculated

F-value for the existence of interaction between the groups and their

perceptions was significant a one-way ANOVAon the difference scores was

conducted. The purpose of these data was to provide an examination of

each group separately. How each group perceived the difference between

"reality" and "expectation" is summarized in column five in Table 16.

To determine which groups of respondents significantly differed

in their differences scores, a Tukey-HSD procedure was conducted. The

results of the Tukey are shown in column six of Table 16.

Analysis of the Data

The calculated F-value for the interaction of groups by percep­

tion was not significant for 13 of the dependent variables. For vari­

ables 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 50 there were no

significant differences among the groups in how they viewed the dis­

crepancy between "reality" and "expectation." For these variables the

null hypothesis was retained. The "trials" main effect was examined

to compare "reality" and "expectation." The examination showed that

"expectation" was greater than "reality" for all groups.

127

For variables 27, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 51,

52, 53, and 54 the calculated F-value indicated a significant inter­

action effect. The analysis of the follow-up one-way ANOVA on the sep­

arate difference scores showed that although on most variables (87%)

"expectation" was greater than "reality" for all groups, the differences

were not comparable. On variable 38 the DRE and LEA respondents per­

ceived "expectation" (The Way It Should Be) as significantly lower than

"reality" (The Way It Is) while the IHE viewed the two as equal to each

other. On variable 52 the DRE and the IHE respondents saw "reality" as

equal to "expectation.11 The LEA respondents perceived the "Way It Is"

as significantly less than the "WAy It Should Be." For these 15 vari­

ables Null Hypothesis 3 was rejected.

The Tukey-HSD analysis revealed between which groups the dif­

ferences significantly varied. By calculating the percentages of occur­

rence the following was indicated. For those significant variables 32

percent of the time the differences were between the DRE and IHE groups,

32 percent between the DRE and LEA groups, and 36 percent between the

IHE and LEA groups.

Null Hypothesis 4

These hypotheses are stated as follows:

a. These are no differences among LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE respon­

dents on their perceptions of the benefits that result from the IHE/LEA

research relationship.

128

b. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE

respondents on their most common complaints about the IHE/LEA research

relationship.

c. There are no differences among the LEA, DRE, IHE, and DCE re­

spondents on their perceptions of what be done to foster better collabo­

rative, research relationships between the LEA and the IHE.

Presentation of the Data

These hypotheses were tested by calculating chi-squares on three

2 free response questions. Table 17 depicts the X calculation for hypo­

thesis 4a. Respondents were asked the question, "What are the benefits

of the IHE/LEA research relationship?" The table is organized into five

categories of responses by group membership, LEA, DRE, IHE and DCE re­

spondents were included. How the categories for this table and the sub­

sequent two tables were determined is discussed in Chapter 3. The

calculations in Table 18 were completed for the question regarding com­

mon complaints in the IHE/LEA research relationship. The four catego­

ries of response were chosen using the same procedures as previously

discussed. In Table 19 are the results for the question, "What can be

done to foster better collaborative relationships?"

Listed in Table 20, 21, 22, and 23 are some of the free res­

ponses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE respectively on the question regarding

complaints in IHE/LEA research relationships.

In Table 24 are some of the free responses from all four groups

of respondents regarding the benefits derived from collaborative

research.

Table 17. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4a

Gaining & Disseminating Better Knowledge for Communications Educational Professional and Better Access

Group Practice Development Financial Relationships to Resources

DCE 13 16 3 10 12

IHE 29 24 6 19 27

DRE 24 10 5 9 16

LEA 22 13 3 13 15

88 63 17 51 70

Degrees of freedom = 12 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 21.03 Calculated Chi Square = 6.62

Question: What benefits are derived from collaboration between IHE and LEA?

Table 18. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4b

Group

LEA does not feel that it benefits from IHE research Organizational Human Relations Poor Communications

DCE 10 21 13 7

IHE 13 31 22 19

DRE 17 27 19 12

LEA 18 16 12 14

58 95 66 52

Degrees of freedom = 9 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 16.92 Calculated Chi Square = 8.22

Question: What are the most common complaints regarding collaborative research between IHE and LEA?

Table 19. Categories of and Observed Frequencies for Chi Square Calculations for Null Hypothesis 4c

Establish joint Joint sharing Develop better advisory commit- of staff, re- Participate in and utilize tees which meet sources, and professional/ current avenues for cooperative time to develop social organiza- for communication-planning and mutually bene- tions where both of research policy develop- ficial ventures groups are needs and

Group ment members results

DCE 11 18 3 6

IHE 9 31 12 5

DRE 9 17 7 3

LEA 10 17 6 2

39 83 28 16

Degrees of freedom = 8 Tabled Chi Square for a = .05 = 16.92 Calculated Chi Square = 8.04

Question: What can be done to foster better collaborative efforts between IHE and LEA?

132

Table 20. Free Responses of DRE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?"

Large City Directors of Research and Evaluation (DREs)*

They have no concept of what is happening in a public school K-12.

Too much dominance in decision-making function by university personnel.

Requests for studies with urgent timeliness that do not permit adequate planning and negotiation for change.

Our major problem with universities is that dissertation proposals which their doctoral candidates submit to us are poorly written and conceived. This puts us in the awkward position of rejecting a proposal for technical/qualitative reasons after a doctoral committee has approved it.

Universities and LEAs don't coordinate joint projects well (partly because of differences in expectations and organizations).

Each group is so concerned about their own problems and operations that little time remains for one another.

Preoccupation of schools of education with very narrow and specialized areas of research.

There is no continuous relationship on which the LEA can depend.

Assumption that the particular research effort planned has priority over instructional needs and the school district should be grateful that the researcher is interested in working in the LEA.

Attempts to circumvent the jointly approved procedures.

* Comments typed as written.

Table 21. Free Responses of LEA Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships ?"

Local Educational Agency Personnel (LEAs)*

The University tends towards types of research that are initiated at University levels and reflect that special interest of the individual professor.

University isolates itself . . .

Failure of Universities to understand the practical limitations placed on 'good' research design in the LEA setting.

Advisors who move their graduate students far along a research track without consultation with the school system in which they wish to conduct research.

Lack of direct relevance or applicability of results in the everyday situation.

LEA curriculum planning does not include university research as a viable component.

LEA frequently does not receive final reports or results even though this is always stipulated in the approval. Graduate students doing dissertation research are the worst about sending final report copies.

Lack of personnel in the university setting with relevant experience at the elementary grade levels.

Amount of recordkeeping and followup necessitated by these joint efforts.

Universities concerned with pure research, LEAs concerned with operations research.

* Comments typed as written.

134

Table 22. Free Responses of IHE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships?"

Institutions of Higher Education (University and College)* (IHE)

Little cooperative efforts.

No policies have been developed for facilitating cooperation.

LEAs often do not realize the benefits of basic or generic research. They want an immediate and guaranteed product.

Universities are often insensitive to public school pressures and requirements for accountability.

Schools are not receptive to open (creative) involvement with university programs/personnel.

University personnel do not see the point of helping LEA personnel to translate pertinent research finding into practical applications.

Failure to inform universities of research needs and/or desires.

Contacts based more on what Sieber calls 'patronage ties' rather than on training or expertise.

Unless equal time is given or other demands are met the school districts will not allow professors and their students into the districts to do research.

No respect for local educators shown by reformist graduate students.

* Comments typed as written.

135

Table 23. Free Responses of DCE Respondents to "What are your most common complaints regarding IHE/LEA research relationships ?"

Deans of Colleges of Education* (DCE)

LEA staff is not interested in repeated research.

Convincing LEA faculty that research is important.

Schools do not see need for theoretical research.

Neither recognizes that each has a differing set of expectations about the purposes/benefits of research.

Lack of willingness on both sides to recognize the other's strengths and own weaknesses.

Lack of clearly defined roles of each party.

Uncoordinated and overlapping requests for sites and subjects.

Time requirements of most studies are too costly to LEA in lost instruction time.

Schools get nothing in return for their cooperation.

Failure of the research to follow established approval procedures.

* Comments typed as written.

136

Table 24. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What are some benefits of IHE/LEA research relationships?"

Benefits Derived from University/LEA Relationships *

All the survey respondents agreed that there are presently some

benefits being derived from the collaborative University/LEA relation­

ship. The comments that follow were selected from the Division H

respondents, Large City Research Directors of Research and Evaluation,

and Deans of Colleges of Education. Some of the most commonly men­

tioned benefits were:*

Collaborative relationships allow staff and faculty from both groups to begin to understand more completely the needs and potential of the other.

Closer contact with reality.

Research results that are considered valuable.

Satisfaction in solving a mutual academic problem.

Access to target populations.

An opportunity to grow in understanding and knowledge about areas that otherwise would not be touched.

LEA has the opportunity to receive technical help at a reduced cost to the LEA.

LEA has the credibility of an outside authority speaking for them on local matters of emotional concern.

Collaborative projects are often found at higher levels than either one separately.

It is an opportunity for graduate students to learn to conduct research.

137

Table 24.—Continued

The quality of the research questions improves.

There is often a direct spinoff for improved relationships in other areas.

*Comments typed as written

138

Table 25. Free Responses of DRE, LEA, IHE and DCE Respondents to the Question "What can be done to foster better collabora­tive research relationships between the IHE and LEA?"*

LEAs should compile and make available to the Universities a list of LEA research needs (solicited cooperatives).

Establish specific communication channels.

Communicate to researchers that they are responsible for reporting the results of their studies and the immediate application of those findings for the practitioners involved.

Establish a research department team in LEA that would keep current on educational research, match it with the district's problems, and then translate the research into objectives, activities, etc., for school district personnel.

Set up an advisory committee for Research and Evaluation in schools with both LEA and higher education members.

Develop specific workable procedures for processing research requests.

Consider research, development, dissemination, evaluation, and implementation as parts of Research and Development.

Attacking mutually defined topics and apply the findings systematically.

Construct centers for field services through which to relate answers most useful to LEAs.

Develop policy agreements.

Make assurances that results will have benefits to community or research will not be undertaken.

Use University resources to assist LEAs in seeking external funds.

Encourage research discussions on relevant topics to a district.

Request of schools the areas in which they need assistance and attempt to match these requests with pertinent faculty.

139

Table 25.—Continued

Collaborate to develop guidelines.

Establishment of joint University/LEA policy boards for specific research projects.

Joint sponsorship of legislation (state and national) for Research and Evaluation.

Careful monitoring of proposals at the University level.

Make sure those who cooperate are informed of results in an efficient way.

Have periodic discussions planned between on-line school administration and selected and interested researchers.

Develop cooperative Data Bases.

Pool knowledge and resources in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems.

Submit joint proposals for funding.

Establish a consortium with public school people to not only deal with research but program development.

*comments typed as written

140

Recommendations from the four groups of respondents are

compiled in Table 25.

Analysis of the Data

For each of the three free response items analyzed the calcula­

ted chi-square was less than the tabled value. This indicated that

there were no significant differences in perceptions among the four

groups of respondents. Based on this analysis Null Hypotheses 4a, 4b,

and 4c were retained.

Summary

Presented in this chapter were a presentation and analysis of

the response rate, census and organizational data, and four hypotheses

related to this study.

Null Hypothesis I was concerned with perspectives of DRE, LEA,

and IHE respondents of the "reality" (How It Is) of the research rela­

tionship between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher

Education. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for 28 dependent variables.

For seven of the dependent variables the Null Hypothesis was retained.

For the remaining 21 the Null Hypothesis was rejected.

The focus of Null Hypothesis 2 was the respondents' perspective

of the "expectation" (How It Should Be) in research relationships be­

tween the IHE and LEA. Scores for 28 dependent variables were calcula­

ted using a one-way ANOVA. The Null Hypothesis was retained for 20 of

those variables. For eight of the dependent variables the Null Hypo­

thesis was rejected.

141

Null Hypothesis 3 pertained to the differences between "reality"

and "expectation" as perceived by the three groups. A two-way ANOVA

was used to test the hypothesis. The null was retained for 13 variables

and rejected for 15.

The Tukey-HSD procedure was conducted for hypotheses 1, 2, and

3 when significance was found.

Hypothesis 4 was focused on three free response items answered

by DCE, DRE, IHE, and LEA respondents. Three separate chi-squares were

conducted. There were no significant differences found. The null hypo­

thesis was retained.

The .05 level of significance was used to test each hypothesis.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,

DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The problem addressed in this study was: What practical and

theoretical problems attend the Institution of Higher Education (IHE/

Local Educaction Agency (LEA) research relationship? The major pur­

poses of the study were to:

1. Describe the organizational features of the IHE which hinder

collaborative research with IHE.

2. Describe the organizational features of the LEA which hinder

collaborative research with IHE.

3. Obtain information which could be used to facilitate collabora­

tive research.

4. Ascertain the extent and nature of the problems and issues in

LEA/IHE research relationships from the perspective of re­

spondents from both institutions.

The literature contains considerable theoretical and practical

observations regarding the tensions involved in interinstitutional

collaboration. However, a limited number of empirical studies exist

on this topic, particularly as it relates to IHE/LEA interinstitutional

142

143

collaboration. This justified the need for futher research in this

area.

For the purposes of this study three populations were sampled:

Deans of Colleges of Education (DCE), Large City Director of Research

and Evaluation in public school systems (DRE), and members of the

American Educational Research Association: Division H who were faculty

in an institution of higher education (IHE) or staff in a research unit

in a local education agency (LEA).

Four null hypotheses were tested. DRE, LEA, and IHE respondents

were included in the analysis of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. All four

groups were included in the analysis for hypothesis 4.

To collect the data necessary for analysis, the subjects re­

ceived research designed questionnaires. The primary focus of the

questionnaires was on problems and perceptions encountered in research

relationships between the IHE and LEA.

The data were analyzed by a one-way ANOVA for hypotheses 1 and

2. Data for hypothesis 3 were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA. Chi-

square was the statistic used to test null hypothesis 4.

Conclusions

The results of the statistical tests of the four null hypothe­

ses used in the study led to the following conclusions.

With "reality" serving as the dependent variable, and group

membership serving as the independent variable, the null hypothesis of

no difference among the DRE, LEA and IHE respondents in their perceptions

144

of the "reality" of the research relationship was rejected for 21 of

the variables. From this it was concluded that the perceptions among

the three groups did differ significantly on those variables. The

Tukey HSD indicated that the perceptual differences were most frequently

between LEA and IHE respondents.

The null hypothesis was retained for seven of the dependent

variables. This finding meant that on those variables the perceptions

of the "reality" of the research relationship did not significantly

differ among the three groups.

For the 28 dependent variables on the "how it should be" state­

ments, the null hypothesis of no difference among the respondents on

their perceptions of the "expectations" of the research relationship

was retained for 20 of the variables. It was concluded that the three

groups of respondents did not differ significantly from each other in

their perceptions on those variables.

The null hypothesis was rejected for eight of the 28 "how it

should be" variables. It was concluded that on those variables there

were significant differences in the perceptions of the IHE, DRE, and

LEA respondents on the "expectation" of the research relationship. The

Tukey HSD indicated that the differences in perceptions were primarily

between the IHE and DRE respondents.

With "reality" and "expectation" and group membership serving

as the independent variables and the interactions of the 28 variables

on "how it is" and the 28 variables on "how it should be" serving as

145

the dependent variables the null hypothesis of no difference in

the respondents' perceptions of the discrepancy between "reality" and

"expectation" was tested. The results were as follows:

The null hypothesis of no difference was retained for 13 of the

28 variables. The follow-up examination supported that for all groups

expectation was greater than reality. For 15 variables the null

hypothesis was rejected. These findings supported that a significant

interaction existed among the respondents on their perceptions of the

discrepancy between "reality" and "expectation" of the research rela­

tionship on those specific variables.

The null hypothesis of no differences between the IHE, DRE,

LEA, and DCE respondents' perceptions of the benefits derived from

collaborative IHE/LEA relationships was retained. It was concluded

that the respondents did not differ significantly from each other in

their perceptions.

The study retained the null hypothesis of no differences among

the four groups of respondents on their complaints regarding the IHE/

LEA research relationship. This finding indicated that there were no

significant differences among the DCE, LEA, IHE, and DRE respondents

on this variable.

The study retained the null hypothesis of no differences among

the respondents!, suggestions for fostering better collaborative re­

lationships. It was concluded that there were no significant differ­

ences among the DCE, LEA, IHE, and LEA respondents.

Based on the retention or rejection of the four null hypotheses

in this study the following general conclusions were made:

1. This study supports the examined literature that perceptual

differences do indeed exist between members of the IHE and LEA

in relation to the research relationship between these two

institutions.

2. The significant differences in perception of the "reality" of

the research relationship relate to planning, decision making

powers, role definition, finances, value of research, and

institutional arrangements for conducting research.

3. The significant differences in perception of the "expectation"

of the research relationship are in the areas of decision

making, value of research, institutional arrangements for

conducting research, role definition, and communications.

4. The areas of significance in the hypothesis relating to the

respondents perceptions of the differences between "reality"

and "expectation" were planning, role definition, finances,

value of research, knowledge of research needs, and institu­

tional arrangements for conducting research.

5. The retention of null hypothesis 4 indicates that:

a) all respondents feel there is some benefit from research

collaboratives between the IHE and the LEA.

b) the complaints about research collaboratives are similar.

c) suggestions for alleviating some of the problems encountered

are similar.

«

147

Discussion

Included in the review of the literature in this study were

sections discussing the organizational, sociological, and perceptual

hindrances to collaborative research between Institutions of Higher

Education (IHE) and Local Education Agencies (LEA)• The four null

hypotheses in this study were focused on the perceptions of four

groups—two from the IHE and two from the LEA—on these topics. The

following implications were derived from the conclusions of this study.

Perception is an important factor which contributes to the success or

failure of a collaborative research effort. This implies that when an

IHE and LEA desire to enter into a collaborative research arrangement,

perceptions of the participants—the reality and expectation of the

research relationship—should be discussed early in the arrangement.

The results of the study further imply that some of the initial

discussions should be centered on decision making arrangements, role

definition, communication procedures, the -value of the research to be

conducted for the participants involved, the research needs of the

participants, and institutional barriers and facilitators in the con­

ducting of the proposed research. The results also indicate that there

are areas of agreement among IHE and LEA personnel. These mutual areas

can act as a springboard for the initiation of collaborative efforts.

There is much yet to be learned in the field of education—in

learning, teaching, and the administration of educational facilities.

Breakthroughs in these areas are important to the survival of public

148

education. If the two major institutions in the field of education can

collaborate to develop needed research, educational endeavors can be

enhanced. Concurrently, if the two major educational institutions can­

not collaborate to help to find needed information, the impending

result is continued and proliferated failure. This study helped to

identify some sources of conflict in the collaborative research rela­

tionship. The implication is that identified sources of conflict can

be minimized through communication. Two institutions so closely

bound in purpose and need can ill-afford to continue their present

course of isolated research efforts.

A major purpose of this study was to ascertain information

which hinders or facilitates collaborate research between the IHE and

the LEA. The major purposes of this study were met in that contained

in this document are the following:

1. Organizational features of the IHE and LEA which hinder

collaborative research.

2„ Information which can be used to facilitate collaborative

research.

3. Perceptions of IHE and LEA respondents on the extent and

nature of problems and issues in collaborative research efforts.

In addition this study:

1. helps to expand the empirical knowledge base of collaborative

research problems and solutions

2. provides a base for further development of future studies.

3. provides a number of variables to be considered when entering

into a collaborative research arrangement.

149

4. represents a unique effort to empirically investigate per­

ceptual differences which cause problems in collaborative

research.

Recommendations

Most of the writings on the topic of collaborative research

relationships between the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and

the Local Education Agency (LEA) have been theoretical and discursive

rather than empirically based. The extensive literature review in

this study supports this statement. There exists a need for more em­

pirical studies which focus on various aspects of the research relation­

ship between the IHE and LEA. It is therefore recommended that this

study be replicated involving LEA, DRE, and IHE personnel from popula­

tions other than AERA memberships.

This study was focused primarily on the perceptual hindrances

to collaborative research in the IHE and LEA. There should be a con­

tinuing search for other factors which hinder or facilitate successful

collaboratives. A compiled body of research relating to this topic

should be encouraged so that there will exist several data banks which

can be systematically searched. This data-based feedback on the effective­

ness, weaknesses which need modification, problems, solutions, etc.

would be extremely useful to those who desire to enter into a collabora­

tive relationship.

The instrument used in this study proved very useful in mea­

suring perceptions about research collaboratives. However, the length

150

was unwieldy. If the instrument is to be used again, it must be better

refined. It is also recommended that survey instruments he constructed

which specifically measure political, organizational, communicative,

and planning factors.

The sample included in this study involved only one group of

high level administrators in the IHE. The literature suggests that top

level administrators are the key to collaborative success (Sieber 1966).

It is recommended that future studies include top level administrators

from both the IHE and the LEA. In addition some studies should include

all major relevant audiences. Only research staff were included in

this study. If the level of interest in research is to be raised, the

threat of research decreased, and the potential for use maximized

then this recommendation should be considered.

Stressed in some of the literature was the lack of training of

those who conduct research. Studies could be focused on the training

programs in institutions of higher educations with the intention of

building a data bank which demonstrates a need for an internship pro­

gram in research.

Finally, it is recommended that studies be conducted which

examine the relationship between the ideal and actual purposes of re­

search in an effort to find ways to bring those purposes closer together.

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR DRE, IHE, AND LEA

Survey Questionnaire for Division H: School Evaluation and Program Development

FOSTERING FRUITFUL UNIVERSITY/LEA RELATIONS

This questionnaire will be keypunched. After you have responded to each question by circling or checking the appropriate response, place the coded number of that response in the ( ) provided before or after each question.

Example 1: ( 2 ) 3. 1. Male 2. \J Female

Example 2: (3) 11. 1 2 (J) 4 5 University research is relative.

The entire questionnaire takes 20 minutes to complete; you are encouraged to respond.

Census Data (Mark all that apply.)

( ) 1. Circle Division Memberships: ABCDEFGHI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. Name of state in which you work.

( ) 3. 1. Male 2. Female

( ) 4. Highest degree obtained.

1 . Bachelor 3. Doctorate 2 . Master's 4. Other (please specify)

( ) 5. Ethnic origin.

1. American Indian 4. Spanish Surname American 2 . Black American 5. All Others 3. Asian American

151

152

( ) 6. Indicate where you presently work. (If more than one, put percentage of time.)

1 . Local Education 5. Research Development and Agency (LEA) Evaluation (RD&E) Organization

2 . State Education 6. Other Agency (SEA) (please specify)

3 University 4. College

( ) 7. Indicate where you worked previously.

( ) 8. If higher education, what is student enrollment?

1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. 45,000 or more

( ) 9. If LEA, what is student enrollment?

1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. [45,000 or more

( ) 10. Position function.

1 . Dean 4. College/University Personnel 2. RD&E Director 5. RD&E Staff 3 . Project Director 6. Other

(please specify)

Organizational Data (LEA only, check one)

( ) 11. Do you have a centralized research and evaluation (R&E) unit?

1. Yes 2. No

( ) 12. If yes, how long has this office been in existence?

1 . Less than 1 year 3. 5-10 years 2 . 1-5 years 4. More than 10 years

( ) 13. If yes, number of total staff in R&E unit.

1 . 1-4 3. 11-15 2 . 5-10 4. More than 15

(UNIVERSITY ONLY)

14. Name of department.

153

( ) 15. Do you have a coordinating research office (CRO)?

1. Yes 2. No

( ) 16. If yes, check all that apply.

1 . Department level CRO 3. University level CRO 2 . College level CRO

(END OF UNIVERSITY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS)

(FOR ALL RESPONDENTS)

( ) 17. If you request outside RD&E, from whom do you request assistance? (Check all that apply.)

1 . LEA 5. RD&E Organization 2 . SEA 6. Private Consultant 3. University 7. No Cooperative Projects 4 . College 8. Other

(please specify)

( ) 18. Who requests to work with you on RD&E?

1 . LEA 5. RD&E Organization 2 . SEA 6. Private Consultant 3 . University 7. No Cooperative Projects 4 . College 8. Other_

(please specify)

( ) 19. Person(s) responsible for final approval of research requests.

1 . Superintendet 5. Dean 2 . Review Panel/Committee 6. Department Chairperson 3. RD&E Director 7. Other 4. Project Director (please specify)

Problems and Issues

Please circle appropriate numbered responses on both sides of statement as they relate to University/LEA relations. 1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Always.

How It Is How It Should Be

( ) 20. 12 3 4 5 There is early, cooperative in- 12 3 4 5 ( ) volvement of both groups in planning the research effort.

154

How It Is How It Should Be

( ) 21. 12345 Decision-making and power is 12345 () shared equally by the resource controllers and those affected by the effort.

The following are clearly defined:

( ) 22. 12345 Expectations 1 2 3 4 5 ( )

( ) 23. 12345 Policies and procedures 12 3 4 5 ( )

( ) 24. 12 3 4 5 Roles 12 3 4 5 ( )

( ) 25. 12345 Responsibilities 12 3 4 5 ( )

( ) 26. 12345 Funding agencies encourage 12 3 4 5 ( ) collaborative research efforts through the allocation of resources.

( ) 27. 12345 Monies are allocated to research 12 3 4 5 ( ) on fostering cooperative rela­tions.

( ) 28. 12345 Division H awards program in- 12 3 4 5 ( ) eludes the category "Best Example of a Collaborative University/LEA Effort."

( ) 29. 12345 Research journals are encouraged 12 3 4 5 ( ) to develop special issues on this subject of University/LEA relations and maintain it as an editorial priority.

( ) 30. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) LEA needs.

( ) 31. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) university needs.

( ) 32. 12345 University research is based on 12345 ( ) joint needs.

( ) 33. 12345 Research conducted by univer- 12 3 4 5 ( ) sity is of value to LEA.

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

155

How It Is How It Should Be

12 3 4 5 Research conducted by LEA is of 12345 ( ) value to university.

12 3 4 5 A compilation of LEA research 12 3 4 5 ( ) needs is available to university and others.

12 3 4 5 LEA has a policy/procedure for out-of-district research.

12 3 4 5 LEA Data Base Information is 12345 () available.

12 3 4 5 University Data Base Information 12 3 4 5 ( ) is available.

12 3 4 5 Cooperative Data Bases have been 12 3 4 5 ( ) developed.

12 3 4 5 Knowledge and resources have 12 3 4 5 ( ) been pooled in an attempt to solve metropolitan educational problems.

12 3 4 5 Information is shared concerning 12 3 4 5 ( ) ongoing activities.

12 3 4 5 There is a designated person(s) 12 3 4 5 ( ) in LEA office who handles out-of-district research requests.

12 3 4 5 Human subject form(s) is required 12 3 4 5 ( ) for appropriate research projects.

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

12 3 4 5 The Consortium or formal rela- 12 3 4 5 ( ) tionship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.

1 2 3 4 5 Informal Relationships resulting 12 3 4 5 ( ) from personal relationships.

156

How It Is How It Should Be

( ) 46. 12345 Personnel Exchange where LEA and 12 3 4 5 ( ) university personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time.

( ) 47. 12345 Solicited Cooperatives where 12 3 4 5 ( ) university and labs are apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability on a separate sheet of paper.

43. Briefly list your three most common complaints about University/ LEA relationships.

49. Briefly list your three most common benefits from University/LEA collaborative R&E relationships.

Successful Joint Relationships

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability on a separate sheet of paper.

( ) 50. Did you engage in any joint University/LEA proposals for funding in the last 3 years?

1. Yes 2. No

51. If yes, please state number and nature of proposals.

( ) 52. Were any of the proposals funded?

1. Yes 2. No

53. If yes, which ones.

54. List 3 activities in which you engage to foster cooperative relationships.

55. Briefly describe 3 successful University/LEA cooperatives you have had in the last 3 years. Please attach available examples.

( ) 56. Would you be willing to be interviewed by phone?

1. Yes 2. No

( ) 57. Do you wish survey results?

1. Yes 2. No

NAME PHONE/Area

ADDRESS

Return questionnaires and supporting data to:

Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Director Research and Evaluation Department TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT P. 0. Box 40400 Tucson, AZ 85717

Thank you for your prompt response - Denise Richardson, Administrative Intern

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT FOR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION TEACHERS

Survey Questionnaire for Division H: To Deans of Colleges of Education

School Evaluation and Program Development FOSTERING FRUITFUL UNIVERSITY/LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY (LEA) RELATIONS

This questionnaire will be keypunched. After you have responded to each question by circling or checking the appropriate response, place the coded number of that response in the ( ) provided before each ques­tion. The entire questionnaire takes 10 minutes to complete; you are encouraged to respond.

EXAMPLE: ( 2 ) 3. 1. Male 2. / Female

1. Name of state in which you work.

( ) 2. 1. Male 2. Female

( ) 3. Ethnic origin.

1 . American Indian 3. Asian American 5. All Others 2 . Black American 4. Spanish Surname American

( ) 4. What is the student enrollment of your institution?

1 . Below 10,000 3. 25,000-44,999 2 . 10,000-24,999 4. 45,000 or more

5. What is graduate student enrollment in College of Education?

6. Approximate number of faculty conducting research in LEAs annually?

( ) 7. Do you have a coordinating research office(s)(CRO)? 1. Yes 2. No

158

159

( ) 8. If yes, check all that apply. 1 . Departmental Level CRO 3. University Level CRO 2 . College Level CRO

( ) 9. Who is responsible for final approval of graduate research (check one). 1. Mai or Advisor 3. Dean (or Assistant) 2 . Department Head 4. Other

( )10. Does College of Education have a research policy? 1. Yes 2. No

11. If yes, briefly explain how research policy is determined, or attach a copy of your policy.

Please answer these questions to the best of your ability.

12. Briefly explain the process for approval of faculty research in school districts.

13. Briefly list your three most common complaints about University/ LEA relationships.

14. Why do you think problems between University researchers and LEAs exist?

15. Briefly list your three most common benefits from University/LEA collaborative R&E relationships.

16. List three activities in which you would engage to foster coopera­tive relationships with local school districts.

160

Please check the appropriate response as it pertains to your college.

( )17. 1. Yes 2. No

( )18. 1. Yes 2. No

( )19. 1. Yes 2. No

( )20. 1. Yes 2. No

The following approaches to cooperative research are used:

The Consortium or formal relationship between participating organizations with specific guidelines established in advance.

Informal Relationships resulting from personal relationships.

Personnel Exchange where LEA and Univer­sity personnel are shared or exchanged for periods of time.

Solicited Cooperatives where the Univer­sity is apprised of topics which LEAs would be interested in pursuing.

Please attach any information or examples you feel are relevant to this study.

( )21. 1. Yes 2. No Would you be willing to be interviewed by phone?

( )22. 1. Yes 2. No Do you wish survey results?

NAME PHONE/Area

ADDRESS

Return questionnaires and supporting data to: Dr. Barbara S. Prentice, Director, Research and Evaluation Department, TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, P. 0. BOX 40400, Tucson, AZ 85716

Thank you for your prompt response—Denise Richardson, Administrative Intern

APPENDIX C

CONCEPTUAL CHECKLIST FOR PERSONS PLANNING TO

DEVELOP INTERINSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATIONS

1.0 Desired Results

As a result of the cooperative efforts, which of the following is desired? Circle the appropriate response—Yes, No, or Maybe (?)

Yes No 1 1. 1 To increase facilities Yes No 1 1. 2 To increase services Yes No 1 1. 3 To increase the quality of services Yes No 1 1. 4 To increase a bank of knowledge Yes No 1 1. 5 To increase the number of clients to serve Yes No 1 1. 6 To satisfy external pressures for cooperation Yes No 1 1. 7 To develop a spirit of cooperation Yes No 7 1. 8 To increase the positive image of the organiza­

tion Yes No 1 1. 9 To increase problem solving and resolution

potential

2.0 Potential Constraints/Facilitators

Depending on the purposes identified and the general context in which the cooperative efforts are to transpire, which of the fol­lowing is a relevant constraint and/or facilitator?

2.1 Potential Constraints

Yes No 1 2 .1.1 Potential loss of decision-making autonomy Yes No 1 2 .1.2 Threat to positive image of the organization Yes No 1 2 .1.3 Threat to identity of organization Yes No 1 2 .1.4 Dilution of resources available to organization Yes No 7 2 .1.5 Create territorial turf issues Yes No ? 2 .1.6 Existence of common goals which, may jcesult in

a competitive situation

2.2 Potential Facilitators

Yes No ? 2.2.1 Existence of openness and access by persons external to the organization

Yes No ? 2.2.2 Existence of complementary goals with other organizations involved in the cooperative effort

Yes No ? 2.2.3 Existence of an identifiable, mutual need

161

162

Yes No ? 2.2.4 Existence of prevailing norms, both internally and externally, which support cooperative efforts

Yes No ? 2.2.5 Existence of legitimation for cooperative ef­forts through varying forms of recognition, compensatory time-off and other rewards

Yes No ? 2.2.6 Existence of geographical proximity of reason­able travel time between cooperating institu­tions

Yes No ? 2.2.7 Existence of needed expertise, e.g., OD, group dynamics and interpersonal communications

3.0 Desired Processes

The following represents potential processes which should be con­sidered in bringing about cooperative efforts. Circle A for those which are appropriate and IA for those which appear inappropriate.

A IA ? 3.1 Develop a trusting atmosphere A IA ? 3.2 Develop points of potential common interests A IA 1 3.3 Develop a priority list of common interests A IA 1 3.4 Establish the feasibility of specific programs A IA 1 3.5 Specify the desired outcomes of the cooperative

effort A IA 1 3.6 Conduct a cost-benefit evaluation of potential

cooperative efforts A IA 1 3.7 Involve internal personnel in cost-benefit

analysis A IA 1 3.8 Identify and mobilize needed resources A IA 1 3.9 Participate in ongoing evaluation of implemen­

tation of plans A IA 1 3.10 Recognize and reward successes

4.0 Desired Structure

The following represents structured options in facilitating the preceding desired results and processes. Circle A for the appro­priate options, and IA for inappropriate options.

A IA 1 4. 1 Create boundary spanning roles (Boundary persons)

A IA 1 4. 2 Create environment scanning capacities A IA 1 4. 3 Establish overlapping memberships A IA 1 4. 4 Establish tentative designs for possible pro­

grams A IA 1 4. 5 Redesign programs based on evaluation A IA 1 4. 6 Delineate functions or subsystems needed to

achieve goals of the cooperative effort A IA 1 4. 7 Establish multiple roles to facilitate coopera­

tive efforts (e.g., negotiator, underground manager, manoeuvrer, broker, network manager, and facilitator)

A IA 1 4. 8 Establish a goverance structure for policy development and client representation

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association, "Annual Membership Report" Educational Researcher, Summer 1979, Vol. 2, 18-26.

American Association of School Administrators, Guidelines for the Preparation of School Administrators: Superintendent Career Development Series, Number 1, Arlington, VA, 1979.

Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley. 1964.

Aronson, Sidney H. "Researcher vs Practitioner: Problems in Social Action Research." Social Work, Oct. 1967, Vol 12, 89-96.

Averch, Harvey A. How Effective Is Schooling: A Critical Review of Research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1974.

Barber, Larry W. A Local Education Agency's Approach to the Protec­tion of Human Subjects in Educational Research and Develop­ment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, April 1979.

Release of Research Information—A Tale of Two Cities. Paper presented to AERA annual meeting, April 1976.

"Research and Evaluation in the Louisville Public Schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education, Summer 1972. Vol. 5, 79-97.

Bennis, Warren G. "Beyond Bureaucracy" TransAction (July-August) 1965, Vol. 2, 30-37.

Blake, Robert R., Jane S. Mouton, L. B. Barnes, and L. E. Greiner. "Breakthrough in Organizational Development." Harvard Busi­ness Review. December 1964, Vol. 42, p. 133-155.

Blake, Roy F. The Administrative Internship: Current Trends. Paper presented at American Association of School Administrators, Anaheim, CA, 1980.

Bloom, Benjamin. Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York: McGraw Hill, 1977.

163

164

Boulding, Kenneth E. "General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science," Management Science, April 1956, Vol 2, 197-208.

Butts, Freeman. A History of Education in American Culture. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1953.

Callahan, Carolyn M. Evaluating a Local Gifted Program: An LEA/ University Cooperative Effort. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.

Carlson, Robert V. Conceptual Frameworks for Viewing Interinstitu-tional Collaborative Efforts. Paper presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.

Carter, David G. Conducting Research in School Systems—Confessions of a College Dean. Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco, 1979.

Chilcott, John H. Anthropology and Educational Administration, Tucson, Arizona: Impresora Sahuaro, 1979.

Cohen, David K. "Reforming Educational Policy with Applied Social Research." Harvard Educational Review, February 1975, vol 45, 17-43.

. "Politics and Research: Evaluation of Social Action Programs." Review of Educational Research, April 1970, vol 40, 213-238.

Dinham, Sarah M. Exploring Statistics: An Introduction for Psychology and Education. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1976.

Dosher, Anne. "Networks: A Key to Person-Community Development." Paper presented to the Office of Youth Department, HEW, Denver, 1977.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Crusade in Europe. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1948, 57-58 and 62-65.

Etzioni, Amitai, Ed. Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.

Foster, George M. Traditional Cultures; and the Impact of Technologi­cal Change, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.

165

Gallup, George H. "The Eleventh Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1979, vol 61, 33-45.

. "The Twelveth Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Atti­tudes toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1980, vol.62, 33-48.

Gephart, William J. "Practical Applications of Research: Time to Sum Up." Practical Applications of Research, PDK Newsletter, June 1980, vol 2.

Getzels, Jacob W. and Guba, Egon G. "Social Behavior and the Adminis­trative Process." School Review, . Winter 1957, vol 65, 423-441.

Goldhammer, Keith. Notes on Institutional Relations in the Inservice Education of the Professional Administrator. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administrators, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1969.

Golembiewski, Robert T. "Organizational Patterns of the Future: What They Mean to Personnel Administration," in Jay M. Shafritz (Ed.) A New World: Readings on modern public personnel manage­ment . Chicago IL: International Personnel Management Associa­tion, 1975, 219-233.

Gutek, Gerald L., A History of the Western Educational Experience. New York: Random House, 1972.

Haase, Ann Marie Bernazza, Personal Communication (question from a doctoral preliminary exam) Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Fall, 1979.

. "On The Threshold of Networking in Educational Research." Scope. A publication of the Arizona Association for Super­vision and Curriculum Development. Winter, 1979, Vol 5, 20-23.

Hathaway, Walter E. Report of the American Educational Research Asso­ciation: Division H Task Force on Relations Between Local Edu­cational Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.

. "Interim Report to the American Education Research Asso­ciation: Division H Task Force on Relations between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education." Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1979.

166

Hartley, Harry J. The Administrative Internship in Education. Buffalo, New York: Faculty of Educational Studies, Department of Educational Administration, State University of New York, 1968.

Hicks, Herbert G. Organizations: Theory and Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Howsam, Robert. "Inservice Education of School Administrators, Background, Present Status, and Problems," in Monograph Series Institutional Roles for In-service Education of School Administrators, Albuquerque, N.M., 1969.

Justman, Joseph. "Problems of Research in Large School Systems." Educational Forum, May 1968, Vol 32, 429-437.

Kean, Michael H. Cooperative Research Efforts—Problems and Potential Symposium. AERA, San Francisco, 1979.

. The Development of a Metropolitan Research Partnership. Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1979.

Kerlinger, Fred N. "The Influence of Research on Education Practice." Educational Researcher, September 1977, Vol. 6, 5-11.

Kimbrough, Ralph B. Educational Administration: An Introduction. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1976.

Ladd, Edward T. Sources of Tension in School-UniversityCollaboration. Atlanta: Urban Laboratory in Education, 1969.

Lessinger, Leon M. Every Kid A Winner: Accountability in Education. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Paper on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948, 20-25.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns in Management. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1961, 55-60.

Mangone, Gerard J. Transnational Research Collaboration. A report submitted by the Task Force on Transnational Collaborative Research International Education Project Occasional Paper No. 2, February 1976.

Maslow, Abraham H. "Synergy in the Society and in the Individual." Journal of Individual Psychology, November 1964, Vol 20., 153-164.

167

Mayer, Frederick. A History of Educational Thought. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1960.

McCloskey, Gordon. Education and Public Understanding. New York: Harper, 1967.

McGregor, Douglas. The Professional Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, II: The Free Press, 1957.

Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlac Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. SPSS-Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975.

Pankratz, Roger and Williams, John. Three Years of Collaboration in the Development of Portal Schools. US Dept of Health, Educa­tion and Welfare: National Institute of Education Publica­tion, 1974.

Parsons, Talcott. "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organizations," in Andrew W. Halpin (Ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. New York: MacMillan, 1958, 40-72.

. "A Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organiza­tions." Administrative Science Quarterly, June 1956, Vol. 1, pp. 63-85 and September 1956, Vol. 11, 225-239.

Payne, Joseph C. "The Responsibilities of a Research Director in a Public School System." Educational Administration and Super­vision, November 1956, Vol. 42, 398-402.

Perdew, Philip W. "Partnership in Teacher Education. Reflections on a Conference." American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., 1968.

Prentice, Barbara S. and Denise R. Richardson. "Results of a Ques­tionnaire Survey for AERA: Division H." Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Boston, 1980.

Rand Corporation. Emerging Issues in Education: Policy Implications for the Schools,- Lexington MA: Lexington Books, 1972.

Rankin, Stuart C. Relationships between the Detroit Public Schools and Selected Universities. Presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.

168

Richards, Les. Relations between Local Education Agencies and Institutions of Higher Education in the Area of Preservice and Inservice Staff Training. Presented at AERA, Boston, 1980.

Rodman, Hyman. "Organizational Strains in the Research-Practioner Relationships." Human Organization, Summer 1964. Vol 23, 171-182.

Rossman, Jack E. "The Faculty and Institutional Research—Perspectives from a Private College" in Special Problems of Institutional Research, Hawaii: Center for Educational Management Studies, 1978, 9-13.

Sage, Daniel D. "An Experience in University School System Exchange from the Perspective of the Guest," UCEA Review, 1977, Vol. 18, 18-20.

Sarrason, S. Human Services and Resources Network. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

Schermerhorn, John R. "Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation," Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, December 1975, 846-856.

. "Interorganizational Development," Journal of Manage­ment, January 1979, Vol. 5, 21-38.

Schon, D. A Design for Youth Development Policy. Boulder Colorado: Center for Action Research, Inc. 1976.

Schutz, Richard E. "Research in Schools," (Editorial), Educational Researcher, May 1976. Vol. 5, p. 5.

Selznick, Phillip. "Foundations of the Theory of Organization," American Sociological Review, February 1958, Vol. 13, 25-35.

Service, Alan L. "Planning and Management Uses of Institutional Data: Examples, Issues and Plans," National Center for Higher Educa­tion Management Systems at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO, 1975.

Sieber, Sam and Lazarsfield, P. The Organization of Educational Research in the United States. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1966.

Siegel, Sydney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.

169

Smith, E. Brooks. "Promises and Pitfalls in the Trend toward Collaboration," Partnership in Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968.

Spindler, George D. "The Doolittle Board and Cooperation in the Army," Social Forces, 1951, Vol. 29, 305-310.

. The Transmission of American Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Stufflebeam, Daniel W., W. G. Foley, E. Guba, R. Hammond, H. Merriman, and M. Provus. Educational Evaluation and Decisionmaking, Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1971.

Taylor, Robert C. "Problems and Potentials of Managing Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Research and Development in a University Setting," Journal of Research and Development in Education, Summer 1972, Vol. 5, 20-27.

Thayer, Frederick C. An End to Hierarchy! An End to Competition!, New York: Franklin Watts, 1973.

Tyler, Ralph W. "Utilizing Research in Curriculum Development," Theory into Practice, February 1974, Vol. 8, 5-10.

Weiss, Carol H. Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Witsky, Jonas. "The Organization and Function of City School Research Bureaus," American School Board Journal. April 1948. 25-27.

Yates, Alfred (Ed). The Role of Research in Educational Change. Palo Alto: Pacific Books, 1971.

Zahn, Jane. Observations Concerning Some Problems and Events of a College and a School District Working Together. Unpublished paper, 1967.